California Biomass Generation

Availability of Biomass Feedstock
19/02/2011 Rev 1 Draft
California Biomass Generation

Investigation into the feasibility and costs of obtaining sufficient renewable Biomass feedstock in California for the purpose of use in Generation of Electricity
Mike Sutherland
mjfsutherland@gmail.com +39 320 7950837
Gabrielle Gabrielloni
gabrielegabrielloni73@yahoo.it Mike Sutherland | mjfsutherland@gmail.com | Page 1 of 19 +39 335 5423122
CALIFORNIA BIOMASS GENERATION

AVAILABILITY OF BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California has an abundance of biomass available although no official channels currently exist for accessing much of this. It is currently up to the biomass developers to set up contracts wherever they can to secure a reliable feedstock. California has a large agricultural industry with many farms large enough to be eligible candidates as suppliers of biomass feedstock or to directly use the biomass plant as an additional revenue stream. The Poultry industry is already starting to investigate how they can benefit from the animal waste. The forestry industry could greatly benefit from a more economical way of disposing of the biomass left over from wildfire fuel prevention programs and are pushing for localized biomass plants to help with this. Dedicated energy crops are a major research topic amongst the major agricultural universities. Land prices and production costs can be higher than in other US states so it is important to find crops with high yields and low maintenance and to attempt to extract the full potential from the crop in terms of electricity, biofuel and other useful by-products. California is a state with a lot of potential for biomass development. It is still in the early stages of a new growth period with this technology. The state has made clear goals to build new biomass plants, using next generation technology with lower emissions.
Mike Sutherland | mjfsutherland@gmail.com | Page 2 of 19
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1 2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 5 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Agricultural Residue ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Dedicated Crops .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Land Values (To Buy) .................................................................................................................................... 8 Land Values (To Rent) ................................................................................................................................. 11 Production Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Energy Data ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Financial Assistance Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 14 Poultry Farms ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Forestry .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Heat Content Ranges FOR Biomass ............................................................................................. 19
Appendix A.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of generating electricity from Biomass is not new to California. Biomass plants have been around for more than a decade. In 2006, the governor at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger, created the first revision of Californias Bioenergy action plan. This plan was to be the blueprint for Californias bioenergy goals and helps to establish the necessary legislation to put this in place. Unfortunately in the years from 2006 to 2009, the state only saw an additional 130MW of bio power capacity added. During that time 60MW was forced to shutdown, often because of difficulties obtaining finance or inability to adhere to Californias stringent clean air act. The latest 2010 revision to the bioenergy action plan acknowledges the shortcomings and difficulties that biomass developers have faced and have put in action legislative steps to ease the permitting hurdles that were previously faced. By the end of 2011 we should start to see signs of the new legislative actions. In addition the action plan makes a number of clear objectives: 1) Increase bio energy production at existing facilities 2) Construct new bioenergy facilities. 3) Integrate bioenergy facilities with biomass collection, processing, and treatment operations and use multiple fuels in bio energy plants 4) Commercialize next generation Conversion technologies; thermochemical and biochemical conversion processes that use a wide range of feedstock and make advances in air quality impact. 5) Remove statutory and regulatory hurdles. California has very clear goals for in-state renewable energy and bio energy generation. In 2010, the state must produce 20% of the total electricity consumption through renewable generation. This increases to 33% by 2020. During this time 20% of the renewable generation must come from bio energy technology. The total net production of bio power in 2008 was 5,800 GWh. If California is to meet their renewable bio energy goal, they will need to add at least 1400 GWh of additional generation every year. This is equivalent to a total additional capacity of around 200MW each year. California has an estimated 36,000,000 Dry Tons per year of potential available biomass with a net potential generation output of 34,300 GWh. These figures are expected to increase by around 10% by the year 2020. This figure for the net technical potential of biomass was derived from four main sources of biomass; Agriculture, Forestry, Municipal Solid Waste and Dedicated Crops. Biomass Technical Potential Feedstock 2010 (GWh) Agriculture Forestry MSW Dedicated Crops Existing Facilities Net Technical Potential 10,000 18,000 10,000 2,000 5,700 34,300 44,300
2020 (GWh) 10,000 21,000 13,000 6,000
AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE
California is at the heart of the US agricultural industry. The state leads the nation in over 70 different commodities. In addition to this, California is the sole producer of 14 of these.
The calculated net technical potential of the agricultural residue in California is around 10,000 GWh. It is hardly surprising when you look at the quantity of material that is being harvested.
Biomass developers in California have already begun looking to the Almond industry for obtaining biomass feedstock. At this point in time there does not appear to be any consistent method for obtaining biomass from the agricultural industry and to date it has been on a contract-by-contract basis, negotiated between the biomass developer and the farm. It might be important to note that the orchards have been cutting back significantly on pruning the trees, as research has shown no negative impact on the yields when the amount of pruning is reduced. Less pruning is obviously beneficial to the farms as they have less waste to deal with. If the biomass residue begins to have
some monetary worth or even to provide the farmers with additional revenue streams, it might be financially advantageous to the farms to increase the amount of the pruning they are doing. Rice straw residue is also a major contender for use as a biomass feedstock. Rice is a major commodity in California and due to the clean air policies farmers are not allowed to burn the rice straw. The cost to the farmer for bailing and removing the residue from the farm can fall between $25 and $45 per acre, however this does not mean the farmers will give it away for free. Biomass developers have tried this approach and have found that the farmers do not like the idea of giving away the residue if someone is making money from it. The price for collection would have to be negotiated on a farm-by-farm basis. Specific data on agricultural residues is not available at this point in time but this information could be obtained directly from the farms.
DEDICATED CROPS
California does not have a history of growing energy crops so very little data exists about it. A large amount of research is currently underway, by the major Agricultural institutions in California, into developing a market for them. The main varieties being investigated at this stage are Sweet Soghum, Sugarbeet, sugarcane, miscanthus and a variety of grasses. The tropical grasses, such as elephant grass and sugarcane are only suited to the northern parts of the state. Wheat and sugarbeets have become very expensive commodities but there are currently developers growing sugarbeats as a dedicated energy crop. Switchgrass has been very popular across the entire US as it is a native grass and grows easily. Miscanthus is also popular but is not as suited to the California climate. Utility grade Alfalfa is another strong candidate for California as it is already in production in large quantities. California has a unique and varied climate, which makes it difficult to compare crop data from other states as a reference for potential in California. For many of the investigated crops, California is able to produce at the upper ends of the yield ranges.
3.1
LAND VALUES (TO BUY)
The State of California is divided up into 8 agricultural districts, which are further divided into 58 counties. California produces a large proportion of the entire countys agricultural commodities. California leads the entire country in the production of almost 80 different commodities, including Hay (Alfalfa) and Rice. California is also the sole (99% or greater) producer of 14 commodities, including; Almonds, Grapes (raisins), Peaches and Dates. Due to a number of high producing counties (Fresno, Kern, Tulare, etc), average values for various statistics for the State of California seem to be heavily weighted towards these areas. Because of the relatively higher production costs in California, there have only been a few biomass developers using dedicated crops as feedstock. These producers have attempted to get the maximum potential out of the crop by producing biofuel, energy and other by-products. One recent example can be seen here http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/7181/mendota-bioenergy-gets-$1.4-million-grant/ The figures below are based on the Farm Asset Value of Agricultural Land in California.
Year Land Type

2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 Agricultural Cropland Agricultural Cropland Agricultural Cropland Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, non-Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, non-Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, non-Irrigated Agricultural Pastureland Agricultural Pastureland Agricultural Pastureland
( / Ha) Land Values based on currency exchange rate of 0.74
Land Value ($ / Acre)

$9,880.00 $9,480.00 $9,130.00 $12,300.00 $11,600.00 $11,100.00 $3,570.00 $3,400.00 $3,500.00 $3,020.00 $2,900.00 $2,850.00
Land Value ( / Ha)

20,032.69 19,221.65 18,511.99 24,939.48 23,520.16 22,506.36 7,238.53 6,893.84 7,096.60 6,123.35 5,880.04 5,778.66
California has the most highly valued irrigated cropland in the US due to California producing such a large percentage of the US high value food commodities.
State California
Arizona Florida New Mexico Utah Washington Idaho Oregon Georgia Missouri Colorado Nebraska Montana Arkansas Mississippi Wyoming Texas Louisiana Kansas
Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated

($ / Acre) ( / Ha)
$11,100.00
$8,000.00 $6,700.00 $5,500.00 $5,050.00 $4,500.00 $3,800.00 $3,620.00 $3,300.00 $3,120.00 $3,100.00 $3,050.00 $2,700.00 $2,250.00 $1,970.00 $1,930.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $1,550.00
22,506.36
16,220.80 13,584.92 11,151.80 10,239.38 9,124.20 7,704.88 7,339.91 6,691.08 6,326.11 6,285.56 6,184.18 5,474.52 4,562.10 3,994.37 3,913.27 3,446.92 3,446.92 3,142.78
State
Florida Georgia
Agricultural Cropland, non-Irrigated

($ / Acre) $5,700.00 $3,800.00 ( / Ha) 11,557.32 7,704.88
California
Missouri Nebraska Mississippi Louisiana Oregon Arkansas Texas South Dakota Idaho Washington Oklahoma Kansas Utah Colorado Wyoming
$3,500.00
$2,630.00 $2,000.00 $1,880.00 $1,830.00 $1,820.00 $1,700.00 $1,510.00 $1,450.00 $1,220.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $1,070.00 $1,040.00 $840.00 $690.00
7,096.60
5,332.59 4,055.20 3,811.89 3,710.51 3,690.23 3,446.92 3,061.68 2,940.02 2,473.67 2,331.74 2,331.74 2,169.53 2,108.70 1,703.18 1,399.04
State
New Jersey Other States Georgia Florida Virginia North Carolina Tennessee Ohio South Carolina
Agricultural Pastureland
($ / Acre) $14,200.00 $5,820.00 $5,400.00 $5,050.00 $4,500.00 $4,340.00 $3,600.00 $3,000.00 $2,900.00 ( / Ha) 28,791.92 11,800.63 10,949.04 10,239.38 9,124.20 8,799.78 7,299.36 6,082.80 5,880.04
California
Illinois Pennsylvania Kentucky Indiana Michigan Arkansas Louisiana Wisconsin
$2,850.00
$2,620.00 $2,500.00 $2,440.00 $2,410.00 $2,400.00 $2,300.00 $2,100.00 $2,020.00
5,778.66
5,312.31 5,069.00 4,947.34 4,886.52 4,866.24 4,663.48 4,257.96 4,095.75
The table below shows the large variation in land value when examined at the County Level. This table shows the largest agricultural counties by total acreage. Fresno, Kern and Tulare also happen to have the highest commodity production valuation at over $USD 2 billion in each county. District County Cropland - Harvested & Irrigated (Acres) San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Valley San Joaquin Valley Southern California San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Valley Central Coast Sacramento Valley Sacramento Valley Sacramento Valley Southern California Sacramento Valley Fresno Kern Tulare Merced San Joaquin Kings Imperial Stanislaus Colusa Madera Yolo Monterey Sutter Glenn Butte Riverside Sacramento 960,215 756,645 540,887 458,017 426,670 419,080 375,167 297,053 268,737 260,596 237,811 224,333 223,199 222,803 192,928 158,437 102,160 ($ / Acre) $7,927 $4,626 $8,266 $7,210 $10,168 $5,465 $5,290 $9,476 $3,979 $6,783 $5,460 $4,645 $6,559 $4,823 $7,513 $15,765 $6,721 Value ( / Ha) 16,073 9,380 16,760 14,619 20,617 11,081 10,726 19,214 8,068 13,753 11,071 9,418 13,299 9,779 15,233 31,965 13,627
Sacramento Valley Northeast Siskiyou-Shasta
Solano Modoc Siskiyou
97,638 95,139 90,488
$4,934 $1,459 $2,501
10,004 2,958 5,071
The table below shows the largest agricultural counties by land area that have a land asset value less than USD $5000 per acre.
District
County
Cropland Harvested & Irrigated

(Acres) ($ / Acre) $4,626 $3,979 $4,645 $4,823 $4,934 $1,459 $2,501 $4,546 $3,184 $1,383 $2,787 $3,167 $3,158 $3,878 $3,088 $2,458 $1,831 $4,764 $3,665 $2,609 $1,244 $3,398
Value
( / Ha) 9,380 8,068 9,418 9,779 10,004 2,958 5,071 9,217 6,456 2,804 5,651 6,421 6,403 7,863 6,261 4,984 3,713 9,659 7,431 5,290 2,522 6,890
San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Valley Central Coast Sacramento Valley Sacramento Valley Northeast Siskiyou-Shasta Central Coast Sacramento Valley Northeast Central Coast Southern California Siskiyou-Shasta Central Coast Sierra Mountains Northern Coast Northeast Sierra Mountains Sierra Mountains Sierra Mountains Siskiyou-Shasta Sierra Mountains
Kern Colusa Monterey Glenn Solano Modoc Siskiyou San Luis Obispo Tehama Lassen San Benito San Bernardino Shasta Alameda Mono Humboldt Plumas Amador Calaveras Sierra Trinity Tuolumne
756,645 268,737 224,333 222,803 97,638 95,139 90,488 78,279 51,546 37,812 29,362 26,614 18,315 8,456 8,144 7,383 6,717 5,678 2,061 1,569 704 503
3.2
LAND VALUES (TO RENT )
Renting agricultural land in California seems to be the more common practice than buying, often with half of the farmland owned and half rented. The rental price of the land on average makes up about 5% of the total production costs.
Year
2010 2009 2010
Land Type
Agricultural Cropland Agricultural Cropland Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated
Rental ($ / Acre)
$261 $274 $345
Rental ( / Ha)
529 556 700
2009 2008 2010 2009 2008
Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Non-Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Non-Irrigated Agricultural Cropland, Non-Irrigated
$350 $360 $50 $56 $59
710 730 101 114 120
State
California
Washington Florida Hawaii Indiana Iowa Oregon Illinois Kentucky Wisconsin Nebraska Michigan Idaho Arizona Tennessee Ohio New York Georgia Minnesota Missouri
Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated

($ / Acre) ( / Ha)
$345
$245 $230 $210 $195 $193 $190 $184 $180 $177 $170 $160 $160 $160 $150 $148 $147 $141 $140 $132
699.52
496.76 466.35 425.80 395.38 391.33 385.24 373.08 364.97 358.89 344.69 324.42 324.42 324.42 304.14 300.08 298.06 285.89 283.86 267.64
State
Iowa Illinois Hawaii Indiana Minnesota Kentucky Nebraska Ohio Missouri Wisconsin
Agricultural Cropland, non-Irrigated

($ / Acre) $176 $169 $140 $139 $121 $103 $103 $100 $94 $87 ( / Ha) 356.86 342.66 283.86 281.84 245.34 208.84 208.84 202.76 190.59 176.40
Oregon Tennessee Michigan Mississippi South Dakota Washington Louisiana
$80 $76 $75 $72 $72 $70 $66
162.21 154.10 152.07 145.99 144.97 141.93 133.82
California
$50
101.38
3.3
PRODUCTION COSTS
Cost per acre to produce corn silage in the San Joaquin Valley: Harvest: Planting is done in April and harvested in September. Yields: 30 ton/acre at 70% humidity.
Operation Operation Cultural: Land Prep: Disc Stubble 2X Land Prep: Pull Borders Irrigate: Preirrigate Land Prep: Knock Down Borders Land Prep: Finish Disc 2X Plant: Seed w/insecticide (Lorsban) + fertilizer (10-34-0) Weed: Post plant (Yukon) Weed: Layby (Prowl) Weed: Cultivate Insect: Mites (Oberon) Irrigate 3X-Fertilize (80-0-0) Water Run 3X Irrigate 5X Pickup Truck Use TOTAL CULTURAL COSTS Harvest: Harvest - Cut, Haul & Pack TOTAL HARVEST COSTS Interest on operating capital @ 6.75% TOTAL OPERATING COSTS/ACRE Cash Overhead: Liability Insurance Office Expense 36 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.35 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.30 0.50 0.38 2.45 6 1 1 1 4 0 2 2 2 0 3 5 6 36 Time (Hrs/A) Labour Cost
Cash and Labour Cost per acre Fuel, Lube & Repairs Material Cost Custom/ Rent Total Cost
22 3 0 3 16 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 5 58
0 0 37 0 0 152 21 17 0 31 191 115 0 563
0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 30
27 4 38 4 20 172 26 22 6 41 194 120 11 686
0 0
0 0
270 270
270 270 16
58
563
300
972
2 20
Land Rent (per producing acre) Property Taxes Property Insurance Investment Repairs TOTAL CASH OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL CASH COSTS/ACRE TOTAL COSTS EURO/HECTARE
94 3 2 4 123 $1096 / acre 2222 / ha
3.4
ENERGY DATA
See Appendix A: Heat Content Ranges for Biomass
3.5
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OPPORTUNITIES
California has already set up the Bioenergy Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) for providing financial assistance with growing crops dedicated to producing bioenergy. In addition to this there are numerous research grants available for research into the development of bioenergy. It might be possible, as one biomass developer has already done, to work alongside the agricultural universities with research into energy crop development. This has multiple benefits of potentially funding the crop development through research grants, gaining leading edge agricultural knowledge from the Universities and keeping at the forefront of any new changes in the industry (as most of the governmental technical advisors are based out of the major agricultural universities). There is no doubt that the worldwide market for energy crops is heating up. These crops need to have highenergy content, high yields, low production costs, and short harvest seasons and numerous other characteristics. Already, new varieties are showing up, such as King Grass, which has been bio-engineered specifically for this purpose. Establishing a close relationship with the leading agricultural universities would seem crucial in establishing a strong foothold in the market place when developing crops for energy use.
POULTRY FARMS
It seems to be difficult to get consistent information on poultry farming in California. According to 1997 Census data California was producing 1,061,153 tons of dry manure from poultry farms per year.
State N. Carolina Arkansas Georgia Farms (number) 4,207 5,591 3,414 Animals (animal units) 661,234 641,788 466,895 Dry Manure (tons) 1,775,979 2,008,041 1,646,859
California
Minnesota Alabama Texas Virginia Missouri Mississippi Pennsylvania Indiana Ohio S. Carolina Iowa Maryland
1,462
2,002 3,606 5,715 2,115 3,732 2,172 3,366 1,616 2,652 945 1,831 1,411
396,704
381,789 379,344 323,447 291,686 258,250 236,578 227,860 190,971 179,445 175,027 152,157 121,487
1,061,153
840,082 1,359,848 966,731 772,619 682,316 855,935 622,987 465,663 479,506 476,066 387,558 427,538
Unfortunately the number of animals is given in animal units (AU). Each animal unit represents 1000 lb of animal. For example 1 AU = 250 Layer Chickens or 455 Broiler chickens. Without the proportional relationship between the different types of bird it is impossible to calculate the actual number of birds from the data. Without this it is difficult to know the amount of manure produced per bird. The table below is taken from a Californian study showing the amount of dry manure in tonnes/year. These figures are from 1990 estimates.
Type Layers Pullets Broilers Breeders Turkeys TOTALS No. of birds (millions) 30 15 220 1 29 Per bird (kg) 36 6 4 54 27 Tonne/day (fresh) (1000s) 2.98 0.26 2.46 0.15 2.16 Tonne/year (fresh) (1000s) 1100 95 890 55 790 2930 Tonne/year (dry) (1000s) 360 30 295 20 260 965
The information here gives data on the production of manure per bird but the total values dont seem to agree with the 1997 census data as the poultry industry in California is growing, rather than shrinking. The table below shows the number of Poultry farms by inventory and is based on the 2007 census data.
1 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 399 400 to 3,199 3,200 to 9,999 10,000 to 19,999 20,000 to 49,999 50,000 to 99,999 100,000 or more 4,553 265 159 48 4 9 15 8 37
As you can see, there seems to be significant discrepancies in the number of poultry farms between the two data sets. However, the 2007 census data gives a total inventory of all types of poultry at around 70 million animals. If we use the table above and assume each farm has the maximum number of birds in its particular category (i.e the most conservative estimate possible) we will find that of the 5,098 farms, 5,061 farms have an inventory between 1 and 99,999 giving a total maximum inventory of 2,200,000 birds. That means that just 37 farms in California own 68 million birds, so it would seem that a large concentration of the total available dry manure can come from just a few farms. If we calculate the amount of manure for a farm of 100,000 birds using the same ratios of bird types in the 1990 data we only get about 1000 tonne per year. A farm of 650,000 birds would therefore produce 6500 tonne. Olivera Egg Ranch in California is estimated to have around 650,000 birds and has just recently commissioned a 1.4MW fuel cell using the poultry manure as feedstock. The manure is turned into biogas using a digester and then fed into the fuel cell. http://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cell . One would have to assume that the 650,000 birds are producing considerably more than 6500 Tonne per year in order to produce 1.4 MW. There is no available data on what farms are doing with the manure, but given that it is rich in Nitrogen, much of it is used or sold as fertilizer. In this respect the farmers already have the option of making some income off the manure. It would be likely that the manure would need to be purchased from the farmer. The alternate option would be to sell the entire plant to the farmer. Given the high utility electricity rates in California it would probably be more cost effective for the farmer to generate his own electricity (and offset the cost of the utility bill) than for him to sell the electricity to the grid. This option appears to be attractive to the farmers, as they have already begun contacting Californian universities to request information on how they can achieve this.
FORESTRY
Communities such as those on the North and South shores of the Tahoe basin and various locations along Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges require regular hazardous fuel treatments to reduce wildfire risk and support ecosystem function. Disposal of biomass residues to facilities located greater than 100 miles away can nearly double project costs. Locating small bioenergy projects near forest biomass sources can reduce treatment costs by producing energy and other useful byproducts, reduce GHG and particulate emissions from open pile burning. There is an estimated biomass technical potential of 18,000 GWh available in California forestry residue. This is also considered the most costly form of biomass due to the often-remote locations and the difficulty in physical collecting the biomass. Some estimates are as high as USD $55 for the collection of this type of biomass. The costs are mainly fuel and labour costs for driving to the location for pickup. There is a definite push for smaller biomass plants to be located very close to the forestry areas. It is unclear at this stage whether there is any interest from the department of forestry and fire protection to purchase and run the plants to reduce the residues from their wildfire fuel prevention programs.
CONCLUSION
California has clear goals for what the state wants to achieve with bioenergy and they are actively pursuing these goals. At face value there appears to be an abundance of biomass available, however when we dig a bit deeper we can see it is not so straightforward. Agricultural residue is plentiful due to Californias substantial agricultural industry, but it is precisely because of this industry of high value crops that we see high land values and production costs. Dedicated crops have a similar problem. Biomass developers need low cost crops and high yields while the farmers want high returns and high demand crops. Why will a farmer use their land to grow an energy crop when they can get better returns with something else? One solution to this dilemma is for biomass developers to form a cooperative and create the energy crop market themselves. Some reports suggest the costs of collection of biomass can be as high as $50 per ton. At this price, this could cripple a project. It is therefore important to keep the collection costs as low as possible. The obvious solution is to situate the plant as close to the source of biomass as possible. The forestry industry appears to be pushing this approach for utilizing the forestry woody biomass. My argument would be, why try to minimize the cost of collection when you can get rid of it altogether if you sell the plant to the producer of the biomass? Poultry farms have already shown an interest and Orchards could benefit as well. Given that the market prices paid for selling the electricity to the grid are lower than the market price paid for buying electricity from the grid, the returns from investing in a biomass plant may be recovered quicker if the farm or orchard is self-generating rather than selling the electricity. The biomass plant simply becomes an additional revenue stream from a product they are already creating and there are no costs of collection. The figures in this document, I hope, can help guide a cost analysis of a project in California. I also hope some of the data helps to show that California does not represent the US as a whole. California may not be the easiest state to enter into biomass at this present time but it has the potential to be a veritable gold mine once the systems and markets have formed and stabilized. The industry still feels young and the few players that are in it now will be the ones that make the rules.
APPENDIX A. HEAT CONTENT RANGES FOR BIOMASS

Heat Content Ranges for Various Biomass Fuels (dry weight basis ) with English and Metric Units Fuel type & source Btu/lb Agricultural Residues Corn stalks/stover Sugarcane bagasse Wheat straw Hulls, shells, prunings Fruit pits Rice Straw residue Jatropha Sweet Soghum Sugarbeet Herbaceous Crops Miscanthus Switchgrass Other grasses Alfalfa Giant King Grass Woody Crops Black locust Eucalyptus Hybrid poplar Willow (2,3,6) Forest Residues Hardwood wood Softwood wood Urban Residues MSW RDF Newspaper Corrugated paper Waxed cartons 5,644 - 8,542 6,683 - 8,563 8,477 - 9,550 7,428 -7,939 11,727 - 11,736 11.2 - 17.0 13.4 - 17.1 17 - 19.1 14.9 - 15.9 23.5 - 23.5 13,119 - 19,855 15,535 - 19,904 19,704 - 22,199 17,265 - 18,453 27,258 - 27,280 13.1 - 19.9 15.5 - 19.9 19.7 - 22.2 17.3 - 18.5 27.3 11,990 - 18,561 14,274 - 18,609 18,389 - 20,702 17,012 25,261 12.0 - 18.6 14.3 - 18.6 18.4 - 20.7 17.0 25.3 2,863 - 4,433 3,409 - 4,445 4,392 - 4,944 4,063 6,033 8,017 - 8,920 8,000 - 9,120 16.0 - 17.5 16.0 - 18.24 18,635 - 20,734 18,595 - 21,119 18.6 - 20.7 18.6 - 21.1 17,514 - 20,768 17.5 - 20.8 4,183 - 4,960 8,409 - 8,582 8,174 - 8,432 8,183 - 8,491 7,983 - 8,497 16.8 - 17.2 16.3 - 16.9 16.4 - 17.0 16.0 - 17.0 19,546 - 19,948 19,000 - 19,599 19,022 - 19,737 18,556 - 19,750 19.5 - 19.9 19.0 - 19.6 19.0 - 19.7 18.6 - 19.7 18,464 17,963 17,700 16,734 - 18,419 18.5 18.0 17.7 16.7 - 18.4 4,409 4,290 4,227 3,996 - 4,399 1-2% 1% 2% 7,782 - 8,417 7,754 - 8,233 7,818 - 7,984 7,804 15.7 - 16.8 15.5 - 16.5 15.6 - 16.0 15.6 18,100 - 19,580 18,024 - 19,137 18,185 - 18,570 18,151 18,400 18.1 - 19.6 18.0 - 19.1 18.2 - 18.6 18.1 18.4 17,818 - 18,097 16,767 - 17,294 16,909 - 17,348 17,058 17.8 - 18.1 16.8 - 18.6 16.9 - 17.3 17.1 4,255 - 4,322 4,004 - 4,130 4,038 - 4,143 4,073 9% 5-7% 7,877 7,610 15.8 15.2 18,322 17,700 18.3 17.7 17,262 16,600 17.2 16.6 4,122 3,964 6% 5% 7,587 - 7,967 7,450 - 8,349 6,964 - 8,148 6,811 - 8,838 8,950 - 10,000 6,859 15.2 - 15.9 14.9 - 16.7 13.9 - 16.3 13.6 - 17.7 17.9 - 20.0 13.7 15,954 15.9 14,920 14.9 3,562 19% 17,636 - 18,519 17,317 - 19,407 16,188 - 18,940 15,831 - 20,543 17.6 - 18.5 17.3 - 19.4 16.1 - 18.9 15.8 - 20.5 16,849 - 17,690 17,713 - 17,860 15,082 - 17,659 16.8 - 18.1 17.7 - 17.9 15.1 - 17.7 4,024 - 4,225 4,230 - 4,266 3,602 - 4,218 6% 2-6% English MBtu/ton Higher Heating Value (HHV) kJ/kg MJ/kg Metric Lower Heating Value (LHV) kJ/kg MJ/kg NCV Kcal/kg Ash Content %
a

California Biomass Generation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

California Biomass Generation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Availability of Biomass Feedstock

19/02/2011 Rev 1 Draft