You are on page 1of 145


DOE/RA/50316-"IT'Vc I. I


Final Report

J u n e 1982

Prepared by Blomass Energy Systems, Inc. Lakeland, Florida For the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Alcohol Fuels Undar Grant No. DE-FG07-80RAS0316

REPRODUCED BY: U., Departmentof Commeme National Technlc~l Informellon Service SpfingfieM, ~rginia 22161

Printed in the United States of America Available from Notional Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161

DISCLAIMER Th0s book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Unated States Government Nmther the Umte~ States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or reSl0ons0bdatyfor the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informal=on, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or reoresents that ate use would not infringe privately owneo rights. References herein to any soectfic commercml product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessanly constitute or =reply it.q endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The wews and opinions of authors expressed harem do not necessanly state or reflect those el the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Ul I

DOE/RA/50316--i'-I Vo]ume I
DOE/RA/50316--TI-VoI.I DE83 001600


Volume I Final Report


Principal Investigator: Henry H. Fishkind

April 1982

?ORTION~ O~___TI~IS KE?9 RT AR, ILS~GIBSE. It E has been reproduced f;'o.mth~ best available c o p y %o permit the broadeS% possibl8 availability-

Prepared by Biomass Energy Systems, inc. 1337 Gary Road Lakeland, Florida For the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Alcoho] Fuels Under Grant No. DE-F~OT-BORA50316



A number of individuals par~:icipated in the preparation of Bicmass Energy. Sysra~s' feasibility study, of production methanul fran Eucalyptus in Central Florida. Dr. George Cornwell, President of Bicmass Energy. Systems, Inc. (BEST), guided the project from its inception. In addit/on, he directed all of the environmental and silvicultural work. Mark LV~orman, BESI's fores~er, did the research for the silvicultural report. Mark Schiller, our techrlical facilitator, w ~ r k ~ in the field and tissl/e culture lab. Tom Levin researched the envirormental areas. Neil Sipe and Donna Fmlch helped with ~he econcmic research. Cynthia Smith researched a of issues and edited the final reports. Finally, Dr. Gary. Hcwland was responsible for the tissue culture ~ r k and made a substantial contribution no~ only to this project, but to the field of tissue culturing Eucalypts. Terri Bode handled the administrative details and typed innumerable drafts. Dot Evans did the final typing on ~ s t of the reports. Finally, particular thanks are in order to Mr. Faith Jones, our technical advisor.

Henry H. Fishkind June, 1982



1.0 Introduction I.I Project overvi~.=w 1.2 .Market ~nviror~enu 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 The me~.her.olmarket 1985 and beyond ~thanol supplies - 1985 and beyond Methanol from Eu~alyptus :~od chips ~-~-view ~croeconanic ass%m~.tions Tissue culture lab nurseFI Eucalyptus ener~z plantation Methanol production facility. Can %Dcd-to-.vethanol ~ t e wit/~ ccal-to-metb~nol?

20 20 21 24 30 38 50 57 D/ 60 61 65

4.0 ~--hviro~ental concerns 4.1 Eucalyptus energy plantation 4.2 5~t~anol production facility 4.3 Use of methanol as a fuel 5.0 Conclusions

~IABI2~ I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I0. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Selected U.S. ~ner~j prices and demand, 1980-1995 Forecasts of uhe potential market for ~Ter_hanol fuel in autnmDbile gasol~e blends Oil and gasoline, !980-1995 Forecasts of wholesale gasoline prices at t_he refinery gate ~oten~r/al market for t~e use of neat methanol Summa1~fof the economics of neat methanol vs. gasoline in Bank of America's fleet test 5~tbmnol prices 1985-2020 General .Tacroeconomic asmm~tions for selected economic variables Production of 7.5-million Eucalyptus trees per year Data and assun~.tions for the tissue culture lab ~-.d nursery Financial analysis--Biomass Energy Syst~-m, Inc. tissue culture tab and nursery. Data and assumptions for the Eucalyptus ~nergy plantation Financial analysis--Bicmass Energy Syst_~n, Inc. Eucalyptus ~_nergy plantation ~-hgL~=ering data c .cr~ariscn Data and asstm~tions for the methanol producticn facility Financial a~mlysis--Bicmass Er~rgy Systems, inc. 100 ~L'Y methanol facili~ ~uhanol production cost forecasts--private producers Cxmparative plant costs

9 ii ii 13 14 15 23 27 29 29 36 37 43 45 49 51 55

F IGLq~ES I. 2. Methanol frcm Eucal.~l~tus Flcw chart for t/~.eEucalyptus to methanol plant
3 42


~rking ~ t

No. I

The Florida Eucalyptus ~ergy Farm- Silvicultural ~thods and Considerations Table of Contents

CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.~ 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 30 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.I S.O 5.1 5,2 5.3 5,~ 5.5 5.6 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW REVIE~ OF PRESENT KNOt/LEDGE AND THE LITERATURE Biomass The Wood Energy P~entation Eucalyp~s as Candidate Biomass Trees E~p/u,5 c . o m n l d ~ z a ~ - - o u r Species c f Choice The EUC.~.~J~2, Experience in F l o r i d a Planta~icn Installa~ion Plantatcn Management Harvesting Issues Wood Markets for Florida' E ~ U ~ 5 Economic Feasibility PLANTATION ~ISTORY Overburden Planting Sand Tailings Planting

PAGE I 5 5 6 9 IA 16 25 &2 52 60 63 66 66 69

PLANTING Climate Spacing and Density Methodology Seasonal Considerations Air Quality Native Vegetation as an Indicator of Land Sui=ability ~cr Eucalyp~s SPECIES SELECTION Eucalypt Sutability Monocultural Containment Propaga=ion ~[AINTENANCE AND MA~AGEMENT Fire Protection Vege~aClve Competition Disease/Insects Grazing Wildlife Cold Drought Access

75 76 79 79 92 94 97 98
99 103 103 104 I05 112 112 114 116 117 117 118 119 119

6.0 6.1 5.2 6,3 7.0 7,1 7.2 7.3 7~4 7.5 7.,6 7.7 7.8



PAGE 121 121 124 127


8. ~ . 8.3 8.~



HARVESTING Background Wood 5~orage on che Plan=ation Logistics of Delivering Wood to the Plant Transportation Alternatives Feedstock Ownership Harves= Cos=s Harvesting Meuhodology EUCALYPTUS BIOB~SS PRODUCTION ESTImaTES Background PrDjec~ion Weigh=s and ~blumes Methanol Plans Feedstock Requlremen~s Estimated Costs, Yields, and Gross Revenues SYNOPSIS Literature Cited Personal CommunicaClons

130 120 131

133 133 135 135 138 139
142 144 159

9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.A 9.5 I0.0

LIST OP TABLES 2-1 3~I 3-~ 3-3 4-1 5-I 5-2 5-3 6-i 6-2 9-I 9-2 9-3 9-4 Poten=ially Available Biomass Produc=ion Lands for Five-Coun=y Area of Cen=ral Florida Recen~ G~owth Increase--Overburden Recen~ Growth ~ncrease--Sand Tellings Soil Analysis and Recommenda=ious--Sand Tellings Examples and Price of Locally Available Si=e Preparation Equlpmenc Probable Freeze Dazes Percen= Chance of Selected Rainfall.~o~n=s per
Week a= Lake A l f r e d and Moore Haven '22 70 71 74

B ~


78a 81
84 88 !06 110 134 136 140

Historic Temperatures at Bar~o~r.and LaB elle, Florida Volume comparison Bs~ng Two Variables Analysis of S e l e c = Sprouzing--Felled VS Wounded Preliminary Eucalypt Growth ~nd Energy Projections Tree Weights (Green) Es=i~=ed Daily (~er Ton) OpeTating Costs for Whole Tree Harvesting EsClmated Daily (Per Ton) opera=ing Cos=s for T~hole Tree Chipping


~orking Document No. 2 Vegetative Pro.oagat/on of Eucalypts Table of Contents

CONTENTS ~.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 INTRODUCTION PROPAGATZON BY ROOTED CUTTINGS Methodology Results and Discussion PROPAGATION BY TISSUE CULTURE Literature Review Methodology for Tissue Culture Propagation Production and Economic Analysis SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


9 9 13 37



TABLES i. 2. 3. 4. 5A. 5B. 6. 7. 8. 9. I0. Ii. Roo~ed Cutting Procedure Survival of Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Cuttings Selected Eucalyptus Camaldulensls Clonal Candidates Coppice Node Cultures Minimal OrEanic Medium Composition Media Formulatlons Euca!y~us Seedlots Frequencies of Mutant Phenotypes in Seedlots of Eucalyptus Loss Estlma=es and Revised Costs Labor Costs Production of 6-Milllon Eucalyptus Trees Per Year Comparison of Propagation by Rooted Cuttings vs. Tissue Culture

16 19 22 23 24
25 42 43 48




Grow=h of Eucalyptus Tissue Cul=ure Clones and Seedlines in ~he Nursery



Working Document No. 3 Florida's Eucalyptus ~ e r g y Farm and ~ t h a n o l Refinery. - The Background Environment Table of Contents

C ~ 1.0 2,0 2.! 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.0 ,~.I 3,2 3.3



~pulation, De~gzaphy and Economics

Land Use Transportation Archeological, Histmrical and .Re~-~eatlonal Rescurces Sensomf Resources Climate Air Cuali~I }bise Pollution

2 2 7 12 14 15
23 23 30 33

4. 4. 4. 4. 5,0 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.0 6.1


Groundwater Surface Water

34 34 4O 43 44 44 52 68 78 78 85 90

Water C~'cy
WaTer Supply and Utilization

BIOTA Ecosystems, C c ~ t y . , and the Flcrida Environment Biological C ~ t i e s of West-Central Florida Areas cf 7_mpor~ant Biological Significance L~D Geology GecnDrphslogy Soils


LiST OF TABLES 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.2.1


P ~ d a t i c n Trends C e m e n t s of Pc~ulation C~ange 1970-1980 .~bnagricultural Employment: ~ z ~ h 1981 .~mn~ary of Point Area Source Emissions in S ~tudy_Area Endar.gered and Threatened Fauna of the Study. Area .%hreatened ar~ Er~ange=~d Plants cf the Study. Area Sur__'ace Formations of Study Area C-~mical ~ s i t i c n of Important Minerals in Study. Area Soil Associations of the Five-County S~cdy Area Scils of ~dle Five-C~.~nty Study. Area 73 77

5.3 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.3.! 6.3.2

83 99 i00



3. i. i 6. i. 1 6. i. 2

Seasonal Rainfall Patterns @~ross the Study Area Surface Formations of Study Area CrDss Section of General Strucuure and Stratigraphy ~hrough Portion of Study Area


8O 81


Working [ ~ n t

No. 4

Health and Safety Aspects of the Florida Eucalypt Bic~ass to .Methanol System Table of Contents

CONTENTS l.O INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW A GENERALIZED SCENARIO OF THE EUCALYPTUS-TO-.~TI5~NOL ENERG'I SYSTEH HEALTH A~D SAFETY IN THE LABORATORY AND GREENHOUSE OCCUPATIONAL S A F E ~ ON THE BIO~SS PLANTATION Risk of Injury to Plantation Workers Silvicultural Plantation Hazards Benefits of Hechanization Site Preparation R i s k s Tree Planting Risks Wood Harvesting Risks Biocidu Exposure and Use Fertilizers Fire Other Hazards HEA~LTH AA~ SAFETY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH TK%t[SPORTING LOGS AND CHIPS HAZARDS AT THE HAMMEKHILL AND FEEDSTOCK STORAGE AREA Feedstock S ~ o r a g e and Air Drying Ambient Conditions in the Wood Yard Harmnermill Operation





4.1 4.2 4.3 4.A 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

12 12 12 13 t3 14 14 15 16 16 17



6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.0

2l 2t 21

POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND }IEALTH RISKS IN T H E WOOD GAS~FICATION/M.ETHANOL SYNTHESZS PLANT 7. Zncroductlon 7.2 Methanol 7.2.1 Sources o~ Leaks and Spills and Mitigating Measures 7.2.2 Fire and Explosion: Emergency Procedures and Hitigating Measures 7.2.3 Health E~fects, Toxicity, and Worker Protection Inhalation Ingestion Exposure Through th~ Skin 7 . 2 . 5 F i r s t Aid and M e d i c a l T r e a t m e n t for Methanol E x p o s u r a 7.3 Hydrogen Sulfide 7.3.1 Sources and M i t i g a t i n g Measures 7.3.2 Toxicology, Treatment, and First Aid 7.4 Carbon Monoxide 7.4.1 Possible Sources and Mitigating Muastlres 7.4.2 Toxicology, Treatment, and First Aid 7.5 Carbon Dioxide (C02) 7.5.1 Sources, Spills, and Hitigmting Heasures 7.5.2 ToxicoLogy o f CO2 7.6 Hedical Surveillance and Risk Assessment

2:3 23 23 23

25 26 29 29 3O 30
31 31 32

33 33 35 35 36 38


40 40 ,-tO 42 43


46 50 51



Working Document No. 5 Florida Eucalyptus Ener~. Farm and Met~znol Refinery - Environmental Impact Assessmmt Table of Contents

CONTENTS 1.0 2.0




.0 .I .2

ENVIR0~R4.ENTAL LMPACTS OF THE EUCALYPTUS PLANTATION Introduction Land Use .3 Soll Considerations .L Nutrlen~ Deple=ion and the Value of Residues 5 ~ydrology and Water Consumption 6 Wa~er Quali~y 7 Air Emlssions 8 Insecticide Use in ~he Eucalyptus Energy Forest 9 ~mpacts on WildliEe and ~atural Systems i0 S~abiliny o Crop Yield .11 Fire Hazards .12 The 3iomass Forest as a Sink for Fossil Fuel Pollu~ion-Carbon D~ox~de

II Ii 13 15 18 20 22 24 26 26 29 29
29 3~-

.13 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2



42 42 42 42 z~3 44 ~5

6.4 6.5 6.6 7.0 7.I 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

ENVIRONME}~AL CONSIDE~%TION~ F O R T HE HA~IHEP~I~LL FACiLiTY AND FEEDSTOCK STORAGE Feedstock S~orage and AiT Drying Ambient Conditions in the Wood Yard Hammerm11 Opera~ion Wood Drying; for the Gas~f~er Drying the Boiler Feedstock Future Assessme=t Needed ENVIRONMENTAL LMPACTS OF THE ,V~THANOL PLANT Gasifier Impacts Reducing Environment in the Gasifier Proper Gasifler Operation Environmental Impacts of the Biomass Energy Systems, Inc. Methanol Plan~ Possible Pollutant Discharges and Clean-up Technology Envlronmnn~al ~mpact of Accumulating Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Grsenhouse Effect)

~6 46 49 50
50 55



CONTENTS 8.0 .0 ,I .2 .3 ,A 5 6 7 8 9 10
. 12



WOOD GASIFICATION/HETHANOL SYNthESIS VS. COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION: A COHPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT5 Impacts off Mining for Coal and Oil Shale Sui=abil~=y or Gasifiica=ion, Wood Vs. Coal Availability of Feedstocks for Conversion ~o Synfuels Sulfur Oxides and Henals Gaslflca~ion Impac=s Wa~er Consump=ion and Q u a 1 ~ y Impac=s Erom Femds~ock S=orage and Preparnr~on Solid Was=es from Coal Processin E ~ly Ash from Coal Con=rol of Air Emissions from Coal Conversion TechnoloEy Pollu=an~s in uhe P:oducu Oils of Coal Conversion and Shale Oil Conclusion

71 71 72 73 73 75 75 77 79 81 Sl 82 ~3



Working ~ t

No. 6

The Florida Eucalyptus Energy Farm Interface with Natural EcoSystems Table of Contents

Table of Concents Contents

Introduction .............................................................. Review of Pertinent Litera=ure ............................................ Eucalypt Background .................................................. The Candidate Species ................................................ Biomass Plantation Considera=ions .................................... Effects of Site Production ........................................... Leachate and Allelopathy ............................................. Some Exotic Flora Considerations ..................................... Comparative Eucalypt Field Survey ........................................ Mined Land Stands ................................................... AgricD Eucalypts ............................................... Grace Eucalypts ................................................ Fort Lonesome Eucaly~ts ........................................ Duette Eucalypts . . . . . . . . ~...................................... Unmined, South Florida Stands ....................................... Ferguson Stand QOee,QalmOI''DOmtlOmOeI,IIaIIIO,OOI*,,,e.',....,B ' "Ferguson Pine" Stand .=.JlII.,,,mQeglma,I~,.l,*J.oo,,.iml,elaol Other EucalyPt Stands - Glades County ............................... Eucalypt Naturalization .................................................. Ferguson Plantation Area Glades County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Homestead Eucalyp:s ................................................. Discussion .......................................................... Conclusions ............................................................... L i t e r a t u r e Cited .......................................................... APPENDIX I APPENDIX I I

i 3 3 4 4 6 7 9 !2 12 !2 14 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 24 28


Working Document No. 7 Feasibility Study Eucalyptus to i000 STPD Methanol Plan in South Central Florida - Davy ~,~Kee Corp. 's FLnal Engineering Paport Table of Contents


McKee -

2585/O August 198~


Projec= Scope
Design Basis Process Description Drawings Process Flow Diagrams Utility Balance Sheet Steam Balance Block Flow Diagram Davy McKee Gas~fier Arrangement Conceptual Plot Plan Single Line Equipment List Raw Materials, Utilities & Manpower Requirements Capital & Opera=i=g Requirements Appendices A~endix I - Analytical Results from Southwes= Research Insci=uce Appendix 2 - Evalua=ion of Ac=ual versus Assumed

Wood Composi=ion


... _.

Working Document No. 8 The ~xxl-fueled Gassification System - Evergreen Energy Corp. 's Final Engineering Report Table of Contents



I il If! IV V V!



EXECUTIVE S U ~ A R Y INTRODUCTION SCOPE TECHNICAL SU~L%RY BASIS OF D E S : G N PLANT C O N F : G U R A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N OF UNITS Unit !: W o o d 9 r e p a r a t i o n and S t o r a q e Unit 2: G a s i f i e r Feeder S y s t e m Unit 3: G a s i f i e r Unit 4: Shift C o n v e r s i o n Unit 5: A c i d Gas Recycle Unit 6: M e t h a n o l S y n t h e s i s & D i s t i l l a t i o n Unit 7: A i r S e p a r a t i o n Unit 8: W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t Unit 9: U t i l i t i e s and A n c i l l a r y Systems a. W a u e r S u p p l y and T r e a t m e n t b. B o i l e r Systems c. A n c i l l a r y F a c i l i t i e s S U M ~ R Y OF ~LATERIALS .~D E N E R G Y Q U A N T I T I E S UTILITY S U ~ . L ~ Y ~NPOWER REQUIREmeNTS CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES C A T A L Y S T .A~!D C H E M I C A L R E Q U I R E M E N T S CONCLUSIONS

m Z O










E. E N G I N E E R I N G


F. BLOCK DIAGP.~IS 810101-A: Total Process Flow 810!01-B: Feedstock Preparation





Working Docarent No. 9 T~e Plorida Eucalyptus Energy Farm and Methanol Refinery - The Econunic Analysis Table of Contents

C ~ i. 0 LV~CDUCTION 1.1 . ~ p o s e 1.2 Overview of the Eucalyp~us-to-metbmr.ol projec~.~ 1.3 Organization 2.0 .METHANOL D ~ N D 2.i Current conditions 2.2 Future prospects 2.2.1 Petruluem prices and U.S. fuel markets 2.2.2 Methanol prices 2.2.3 Met/~n, supplies ol 2.2.4 Distribution conce_n~s 2.2.5 Utilization 2.2.6 Regulation 2.3 Survey, of major oil cc~anies 3.0 METHANOL S U P P ~ 3.1 Current supply ccndit~ns 3.2 Supply outlook 1981-1985 3.3 Producticn costs 3.4 Methanol frcm coal, m/nicipal solid waste, and wood 4.0 FINANCIAL ~/qALYSIS - METHANOL ~ I EUCALYPTUS 4.1 Macroecon~mic assumptions 4.2 Site availability 4.2. I Site selection process 4.2.2 Results 4.2.3 Primary sites 4.3 Tissue cultura lab ar.d nurse~i ccmpl~x 4.4 Eucalyptus energy plantation 4.5 Methanol refi~.ry 4.5.1 Methanol prices 1985-2020 4.5.2 Other asstm~.tions and data 5.0 ~SIONS


! 1 1 3
4 4 7 ii 14 24 24 25 28 29

30 30 33 34 38 46 46 50 51 52 56 58 61 67 68 71 77 79


o ra ay


2.1 Methanol use in the U.S. 2.2 Annual average wholesale prices of met.~encm in the United States 2.3 Methanol d~Tand forecasts for 1985 2.4 Oil and casoline, 1980-19195 2.5 Forecasts of ~ne potential market for methanol fuel in a u t c ~ i ! e gasoline blends

6 9 13 18


TABLES (conUlnued) 2.6 Forecasts of wholesale gasoline prices at the refinery gate 2.7 Potential market for the use of neaU methanol 2.8 Summary of the economics of neat methanol vs. g a s o l i n e i n Bank O~ ~/nerica's fleet test 3.1 U.S. methanol capaci~y, 1980 3.2 Methanol production cost forecasts--private producers 3.3 .Comparative plant costs 4.1 G~eral m a ~ c o n c m i c asmmp~'ons 4.2 Poter.tial sites 4.3 Data and assumpticns for t/-e tissue c~ulture lab and nursery. 4.5 Da~a and asmmptions for t.he Eucalyptus energy planta~iQn 4.6 Financial analvsis--Biomass Energy..Systs~, Inc. Euc~Iyptus nergy plmmtation 4.7 Methanol prices 1985-2020 4.8 Data and asmmptions for the methanol production :, facLl..i.ty 4.9 . inancial analysis Biomass Energy Systems, Ir~c. 100 MSY methanol facility FIGURES I.i Methanol from Eucalyptus 4.1 Potential sites

20 22

32 41 45 49 53 60 64 65 70




i. 0


Pursuan~ to DOE grant number:

DE-z-~07-80RA-50316, ".Methanol from Inc. (BESI) has conmethanol which frcm is

Eucalyptus Wood Chips," Bic~ass Energy Systems, ducted a detailed feasibility Florida. study The of


D/calvp.tus in Central



mmmarized in this dccture~t, includes ni~e other d ~ t s :

Doc~rent nun~-r

Title The Florida Eucalyptus Energy Methods and Considerations Farm Silvicultural

Vegetative Propagation of Eucal.~lots Florida's Eucalyptus Energy Farm and MeUbanol Refinery The Background Environment He~.ith and Safety Aspects of the Florida Eucalypt Bicmass to Msthanol System

Florida's Eucalyptus Energy Farm and M~t~nol Refinery Environmental Impact Assessment The Florida Eucalyptus Energy Farm Interface with Natural EcoSystems Feasibility Study Eucalyptus to 100O STPD Met_~nol Plan in South Central Florida - Davy MnKee Corp.'s Final Engineering Peport "q~e Wood-fueled Gasificat.on System - Evergreen ~ergy Corp. 's Fi/ml Engineering Report T~e Florida Eucalyptus Energy. Farm and ~thanol Pafinemy - The Economic Analysis

Final Report

The Florida Eucalyptus Energy Farm and ~thanol Refinery. - Final Summary Re.=ort study, is an all enc~E~ssing, site specific

This analysis.


.Allphases of methanol

product/onare zxamined--frcm ~ l i n g

to deli,~ry, of finlshzd methanol. of 55 million, high quali~, ture;

The study examines:

(I) produc~.ion

Eucalyptus seedlings r.hrough tissue cul-

(2) establishment of a Eucalyptus energy plantation on approxi(3) engineering for a i00 million gallcn-per-d~y (4) potential environmental i~gacts of the

mately 70,000 acres;

methanol product/on facility; w~.ole project;

(5) safe~f and health aspects of producing and using

methanol~ and (6) development of site specific cost est/m~tes.


Project overview The projec~ is designed to produce I00 million gallons per year of

fuel grade methanol (I,000 tons per day). The methanol will be marketed to major oil ref!n/r.g firms for use as an octane znhancer and fuel z~tender or it will be sold to bulk dealers for direct use as fuel for fleet use. Methanol will be produced in central Florida from Eucalyptus wood. Th~ technology for producing methanol frcm wood is ,~ll known and (i) gasification of wccd, (2) clean-up and reforming of t~e


resulting gas, and (3) catalytic conversion to .nmthancl. This process along with two prel/min~ry engineering designs are ~xami~ed in engineering reports by Evergreen Energy Corporation (Working Document No. 8) and Davy-MzKee, Incorporated (Working Docunent No. 7). To produce 1,000 tons of methanol per day will require approximately 4,000 tons of D/calvptus per day (green). This wood will be produced in a large Eucalyptus energy plantation which is described in ~orkina Document i: The Florida Eucal,agtus ~ e r g y F ~ S i l v i c u l t u r a ! Methods

and Practices. Eucalyptus seedlings will be produced via tissue culture as discus-~d in Wor:~in 9 Docarent 2: ,, Veuetative Propagation of


Figure i provides a sch~natic of the methanol projecz.

frcm D/ca!ypuus

Tissue cul=ure laboratory an~d nurse~Z production O~ superior =-ucal~tus

' '. . . . )

s dlLw.s

Eocalvotus energy plantar/on prc~u~/on o'~ Eucalyptus, harvesting, and delivez-! to the refits]


I ,

i, 000 ton me.- day methanol remlnerv c ~ n v e r s l c n o f ' w o h ~ to z z ~ l and sales

,,,, , ,

Figure l.-~etbmnol from Eucal}?tus

1.2 Fer.ket environment Forecasts that energy prices will rise more rapidly than inflation over the ne.~ 20 years come as no surprise. projections by t_he U.S. Derm~re_nt of Energy projected to increase throughout tb.e period. Table i presents recent (1982). Oil prices are In 1980 dollars (to

abstrac~ frcm general inflation) oil prices will increase frc~ $34 per . barrel to $67 per barrel by 1995. %~us, oil prices are forecast to rise faster ~Jnan inflation, posting a compound real crowth of 4.6 percent. Continued ~ increases in world oil prices have set in moticn The stock of energy

many gradual but significant eccncmic changes. using capital "in tb~ e c o ~

is being slowly conver~u~d or replaced by In addition, fuel switching away fran

more energy efficient capital.

costly oil to less ~xpensive alterr~tive fuels like coal is takir~ place. A"~ese trends are ~xpected to contLnue t~hroughcut the next 15


Thus, under the pressure of steadily rising ene~j pric~s t.he in U.S. oil consun~tion is forecast to fall. This is a stark

contrast to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Gasoline prices will also rise significantly over the next 15 years posting a real growth of 4 percent-per-year. In response, gasoline

consumption is forecast to fall frcm 276.2 million gallons-~_r-da.v in 1980 to 190.7 million gallons . ~ - d a y this decrease. t/ally. by 1995. Four factors account for

First, fuel efficiency, is forecast to increase substan-

The fleet average miles-per-gallon is expected to jump frcm Second, the transportation next 15 years. sector is

14.2 in 1980 to 26.8 by 1995.

slated to grcw more sl~wly over t ~

Growth in the number

of registered vehicles and miles traveled will slow significantly as fuel costs rise. Third, higher gasoline prices will prcmpt greater use Finally, rising gasoline prices will foster

of diesel-powered vehicles.

the development of methanol fuels (U.S. Department of ~hergy, 1981, pp.

42, 94-95).

As a result, the transports ~t!on sector will absorb a declining share of the nation's total energy consumption throughout the 1980-1995 period. This r~verses the trend begun in 1965 wh=_n transportation

energy use began growing faster than overall energy cce.sumpti'on. Even so, the transpo.~cation sector will still consume the lien's share of U.S. petrole~n. Its absorption of oil will increase frcm 53 percent of

the total in 1979 to 56 percent by. 1995. Thus, while o~her sectors can locate suitable substitutes for oil based fuels, transportation can not. (U.S. Department of Energy, 1982, pp. 39).

Th~ D e ~ t

o~ Energy's

forecasUs .~or 2000 and 2020 do not fc~ 1980-1995. In

display any sharp breaks with the ~.~ends ~ c t e d general, which the adJust~nnts

to ever-n~r~-scarce and ever-m3re-costl~, oil will continue tkrcugh 2020. Future


in t.he mld-1970s

domestic supplies of oil and gas will be higher than if a lower price were to prevail, but their supplies axe forecas~ to dwindle after 2000. Higher prices for oil and gas will encourage the use of alte.n%ati,.~ fuels, particularly coal, and spur continued energy, ccnse~zation (U.S. D e ~ t of ~ergy, 1982, pp. 103-104).

One striking featu/e of tba Departmem.t's forecast is the rapid expansion in consumption of synthetic liquid fuels such as methanol basic factors which prc~cte the rapid d e v e l ~ t fuels industry include: continued The

of a synthetic liquid liquid fuels fcr

dependznce on

transportation, the absence of other econcmically viable s~bstitutes for transportation, the asstm.~.ticn of rapidly rising wDrld oil prices, and By. 1990 the D e ~ t

the continued depletion of U.S. oil reserves.

forecasts methanol demaD.d for ftlel purposes will exceed 7 million tons and may rise to nearly 15 million tons by 1995 Energy, 1980, pp. 94 and 165). This study, evaluates cne pathway by which methanol fuel can be produced to service the autmmotive fuel .Tarket. We report on the (U.S. D e ~ t of

feasibility of producing rrethanol from Eucalyptus wc~d chips in Central Florida. The project is a comprehensive one, and it includes all phases Section 2 ~_~amines

of production from seedling to deli:~/y of methanol.

the future market for metbmnol fuel and projects future methanol prices. Section 3 describes the steps involved in producing methanol frcm


in Central Florida.

The concept involves a grass-roots,




detailed financial


analysis is included.

Section 4 evaluates th~ potential environmental

.Imped/ments to the project, and Section 5 presents our conclusions.

Table l.--Selected U.S. energy prices and demand, 1980-1995 (in 1980 dollars) 1980 Oil P-~[_ceperbarrel Millions of barrels per day Gasoline Price per gallon Millions of gallons per day NA Not available. Source: U.S. D e ~ t $34.00 17.0 $1.22 276.2 1985 $33.00 16.6 $1.37 NA 1990 $49.00 15.7 $1.75 NA 1995 $67.00 IF.8 $2.20 190 .7

of Energy (1982), pp. xvi, xx, 42, 44.

2.0 The methanol market 1985 and beyond For methanol to develop as a fuel it will have to c ~ t e fully against petroleum based fuels, especially gasoline. success-

To penetrate

the fuel market, methanol will have to represent a real savings to the consumer after all relevant costs are considered including delivery, conversion %nd efficiency, in use. Since metharml is not used as a fuel in any. sign/ficant quantities at this t/me, an established fuel methanol market does not ~ist. the price for fuel methanol is unknown. Thus,

However, t~e price of chzmical At _urese.nt, uosted

grade methanol can be used as a point of departure.

prices for methanol on the Gulf Coast is 71 per gallon (Alcohol Week, April 19, 1982, pp. 4). Another point of departure for pricing methanol as a fuel is to ccnloare its price to gasoline. Since methanol contains roughly half the

heat/.ng val'~a of gasoline, one might ~x~ecu the price of methanol to be apprcxlma=ely one-half that of gasoline. This is at best a rough lower

limit to m~t.hanol's value or price as a fuel for two ,n%ljor reasons. First, me~_hanoi has a higher octane rating than gasoline, and metbmnol

is p a ~ i ~ l ~ l y
omparisons emissions.


as an ec~ne


Seocnd, simple B ~
costs, and





These factors can be crucial.

For ~xample, a gallon of fuel

oil has a higher BTU cot:tent tha~ a gallon of gaso ~line, but sells for m~re in the market. With t.his background, ~ e apprcac.h to establishing a forecast for methanol is to assess t.he price at which methanol can penetrate the

automotive fuel market.

As Bentz, et al. (1980, pp. lll) point out, the autcmzbi!e

transportation market is composed of a ntm~0er of distinct sub-markets including: declicated fleets (goven~Tent, business, etc.), d/esel The key

powered vehicles,

and gasoline pcwered personal vehicles.

markets for met/~amol fuel are fleets and personal vehicles powered by. gasoline. As noted above the potential penetration of methanol depends .upon (i) its price relative to gasoline, (3] distribution, (2) assured supplies of methanol,

(4) the capacity for utilizing methanol effectively, In this section we address only the first of t/nese

and (5) regulations. questions.

Section 3 des~ibes how methanol will be produced from wocc In addition, methanol. regulation. Section 3 also evaluates the 4 e.xamines enviror/nenta!

and shipped to market. c~.titi%~ statlls of


concerns ar.d g o v ~ t

Methanol can be used in tw~ ways as an a u t ~ t i % ~ n~thanol can be used as a .5/el substitute.


First, {plus

Neat or 100 percent

slight in~urities) methanol powered vehicles have ~isted for some time. Second, methanol can be used as a blending agent with gaso ~i/ne. Each of ~'nese two routes to methanol fuel use. has quite different ~plications. For ~xanple, blends of up. to i0 F~rcent methanol can be used in today's autos raising the octane rating of the fuel and zxtending the supply of gasoline. By. ccntrast, t~e use of neat methanol requires scme signifiand carburetor modifications, but offers tb~ reward of Due to these differences in

cant engine

greater economy and /reproved performance.

potential methanol fuel use, different aur~moti~ market segments will have different penetrations. There are numerous studies of the market for methanol as a blending agent with gasoline. these studies. Although tb~ forecasts appear to differ significantly, the follcwing common characteristics. ing is ~xpected to cccur after assured. Seccmd, subject to they have Table 2 displays a s~pl/ng of the forecasts from

First, extensive methanol blendare and any

1990 when supp. lies of methanol the concerns over distribution

utilization discussed belch, technological barriers.

methanol blends will not encounter

Finally, the three studies concur that limits

on the availabili~I of fuel methanol restrict its use as a blending agent. blending Thus, agent the widely different are the result of forecasts widely for methanol use as a projections of


methanol sup.ply levels and not due to different vi~s about methanol demand.

Bentz, at al.

[1980, p. i17) notes that an additional ~,~or~ant

demand for methanol as a blending agent was ignored by all three of these studLes--its use as an octar~ enhancer in the form of ~[rBE (methyl terra-butyl ether}. unleaded gas. ~ ~ is an inl0ortant octane enhancing additive for

is mixed with unleaded gasoline in concentrations of SLnce ~etbmnol is a major ingredient Ln ~EBE (up :o 50

3 to 5 percent.

De/cent hy weight), a significant proportion of methanol can enter =~.e gasol/2~ market as MI~E.

Table 2.--Forecasts of the potential market for meLhanol fuel in automobllegasoline blends (106barrel/year) 1985
,, ,

:Market study


,, ,,


, ,,

Total U.S. projected %,asoline d~,mnd on an annual basis I

, ,



2,007.5 6.3

1,788.5 i0.0 0.9-8.0 95.2

1,679.0 16.6 0.9-8.5 157.1

.-!~rostand Sullivan 2 Badger 2 Collieries Sources:

---- 0.8-5.0 59.5 IU.S. Department of Energy (1980), pp. 42.

tz, at a_!. 119801,


3Collieries Marmgzment Corp. (1980), pp. 93.


TO ~en~u~ate this marke~ methanol will have to be ccmpe~_itive with whole~le gasoline prices at the -mixing point. ccmpanies Our survey of major eil mixing

(discussed bclcw) confirmed this and identified t ~

point as the refinery.

Oil car~m%ies conceptualize the blending of First, by mixing

methanol as a refinery process for two main reasons.

at the refinery ~.e oil cuban"y can tailor the resulting blend properly. Since gasoline is a mLxt~re of hydrccarbons, the refinery run must be tailored ~o mesh with ~ethenol blending. Otherwise excessive evapora-

tive emissions can reshllt (this issue will be discussed at greater length in Sect_ion 4.) Second, by mixing at the refinery ccnpanies can

m~ke use of their ~xist/ng distribution systems. In light of the conditions for methanol to pem.etrate the gasoline market as a blending agent, it must be priced to be competitive with wholesale gasoline prices at ~ne refinery, gate. U.S. D e ~ t of Energy's latest forecast Table 3 contains the for gasoline prices. Thus,

Unfortunately these are retail prices and not wholesale prices.

we must determine the relationships between wholesale and retail gasoline prices f=~m 1980 to 1995. Fortunately Collieries .Management Corp. (1980, p. 145) has ar~l.vzed the cost of tlmnsporti~g and distributing gasoline and methanol. Their research indicates that the ratio of

wholesale-to-retail gasoline prices will be between 0.763 and 0.776 fran 1980 to 2000. Table 4 presents a forecast for wholesale gasoline prices based on these figures.


Table 3.--Oii and gasoline, 1980-1995 (1980 dollars) 1980 Oil P-~ce per barrel Millions of barrels per day Gasoline Price per barrel Millions of gallons per day !985 1990 !995

$34.00 17.0 Si.22 276.2

$33.00 16.6 $1.37 ~'~

$49.00 15.7 $1.75 NA

$67.00 15.S 52.20 190.7

Source: Energy information Administraticn, U.S. D e p O t of Energj, 1981 Annual Report toCongress, Vol. 3, February, 1982, pp. xvi, .~, 42,

Table 4.--.~orecastsof .#nolesale gasoline pric~s at the refinery, gate (1980 dollars) 1980
, ~ . . . . , , ,,.


1990 $1.75 0.769 $1.35

1995 $2.20 0.776 $1.71

Retail gasoline price per gallon 1 Ratio of wbmlesal~.-to-retail price2 Wholesale price per gallon Sources: ITable 2.4.

$1.22 $1.37 0.757 $0.92 0.763 $1.05

2Collieries M~-.age~_nt Co.rporaticn, ~ ,

p. 145.


TO be a viable blending agent methanol will Prove to be priced at or below $1.05 per gallon in 1985 (using deflated 1980 dollBrs) and at or below $1.71 in 1995. These prices will have to include shipping" and

Pmndling costs to a rsfirezy where blending will take place according to the current thinking of the petroleum ccspanies. The potential use of methanol as a gasoline blending agent and octane enha~zer is not the sole path by which methanol can penetrate the autcmotive fuel IL%3rket. ~ t ~ n o l %o-called neat (fuel grade) form. Neat use of methanol differs substantially from the use of blends as a gasoline s~b~titute.. Significant engine modifications are requir~ ~ no take advantage of methanol's high-octane value and superior conversion efficiency, while at the same time over ecming methanol's disadvantages of hard starting and vapor lock. However, neat methanol is can also be used as a pure fuel in

already in use as a fuel for race cars, and neat met/lanol is being actively tested as a fuel for fleet vehicles. Thus, the technological

prcbl~ns of burning neat methanol in autcmQbile engines has been solved already_, no new technology is needed. Since use of neat methanol requires significant mcdificatlons in

engines and carburetors and because neat methanol fuel is not widely available, fleets. the use of neat methanol %/11 be restricted to dedicated Fleet use also simplifies the distribution and handling of

methanol fuel and insures a supply of neat fuel. ~D recent analysis of t ~ market potential for neat methanol'fuel Bentz, e t a!. (1980, pp. 118-124) and Collieries (1980, pp. 93-95) concur that neat methanol will be 1990 and 2000 because of

were very o ~ s t i c o Management Corp.

used extensively in fleet operations h e ~


its cost effectiveness.

Each study indicates ~hat the market will be Table 5 displays fore(1980) and Collieries

limited by the availability of methanol fuel. casts for neat methanol (1980). frcm Bentz, et al.


Table 5.---Potential market for the use of neat methanol (millions of barrels of methanol per year) 1985 Frost and Sullivan I
. i . . ,

1990 25.0

1995 340.0
. ,

2000 600.0 104.2-130.2 188.8 607.0


Badger I National Transportaticn 1 Policy Study Ccmmission Collieries 2 Sources:

46.8-58.5 160.3 345.2

67.8 --

123.6 28.8

~entz, et al. (1980, pp. 119). 2Collieries Mar~geme.nt Corp. (1980, pp. 94-95).

Two facts are note~Drthy about the forecasts for neat methanol use in Table 5. large--far Second, the First, the total neat methanol market appears to be quite greater Khan are the market for me~dmnol-qasoline on the blends.



by limits

supply of

methanol not the dz~and. All of this, however, begs ~ question of the price required to

Lnsure t_hat the market penetration forecasts for neat met/nanol shcwn in Table 5 ccrne to pass. A _~acent detailed case study involving a small

neat methanol fleet owned by Bank of America sheds light on this crucial cues~J~n. Bentz, et al. (1980, ~--p. 121-123) report on the success of

neat fuels in Bank of America's fleet test. Bank of America's program


involves a tsst fleet of 58 vehicles using both blended fuels and neat


No significant problems with maintenance or operation has Table 6 ccmpares the economics of gasoline and net

been identified.

methanol vehicles in Bank of America's fleet.

Table 6.--Summary of the econcmics of neat metbmnol vs. gasoline in Bank of ATerica's fleet test Data

Delivered cost of gasoline Delivered cost of methanol MPG gasoline vehicles ~ G methanol vehicles Capital cost to retrofit gasoline-fired vehicle to neat methanol Average lifetime vehicle miles Differences in other operating or maintenance costs Calculations I~fetinm operating costs: Capital cost of conversion per (lifetime) miles Fuel cost per mile Total cost per mile

$1.23/gallon $0.88/gallon 16-18 13.7-14.0 $750.00 I00,000 $0.00

Gasoline vehicles $0.001mile $0.072-$0.077 Imile $0.072-$0.077/mile

Methanol vehicles $0.0075/mile



Table 7.--~Ve~ol prices 1985-2020 (d~llars per gallon) 1985 Gasoline I ~thanol Base case 2 L3w case 3 High case 4 Sources: 1.00 0.90 i.i0 1.50 1.17 1.65 2.49 1.56 2.74 4.10 2.18 4.51 6.75 3.05 7.43 8.85 4.28 9.92 13.29 6.01 15.31 17.41 7.88 20.45 2.00 1990 3.00 1995 4.98 2000 8.20 2005 13.51 2010 20.14 2015 36.66 2020 54.66

Infcmation Agency, U.S. Depart-rent of Energy. (1982), adusted by inflation rate for gasoline frcm Chase Ecunmetrics long-term forecast of Octcber, 1981. ~ c m 1982 to 2000--50 percent of gasoline; from 2000-2020--8 percent-per-year increase. 3From 1982 to 1985--45 percent of gasoline price; frcm 1985 to 2000--45 percent of gasoline prices - $0.05 to $0.10 per year. 4Frcm 1982 to 2000--55 percent of gasoline price; frcm 2000 tn 2020--85 percent-per-year increase.



Although methanol has a lower BTU value per gallon than gasoline, its l ~ r price and greater efficiency give it an operating cost advan-

tage over gasoline as a motor _~uel. Fuel costs p e r mile ranged f ~ m $0.072 to $0.077 for gasoline vehicles cumpared to $0.063 to $0.068 for n~thanol ~ e d and vehicles. Against this saving are charges for engine costing $750 per vehicle. Assuming an

carburetor conversions

average vehicle life of 100,000 miles, this translates into an extra charge of $0.0075 per mile for the methanol vehicles. The total operat-

ing costs for the methanol vehicle were essentially identical to that for the gasoline vehicle at then current fuel costs. This suggests that

methanol is c3mpetitive with gasoline for use in fleets when its price is no higher than 71.5 percent of the price of gasoline. This ler.gthy anall/sis indicates that between 1990 and 2000 the demand for methanol fuel will grow rapidly. In particular methanol will

be a very attractive fuel for fleet use, and met~mnol will also be ccnl~etitive as a blending agent directly or indirectly through the additive ~KBE. However, all of this analysis was macroeconcmic or

general in nature.

No specific methanol buyers were identified.


there will not be nuch, if ~my, methanol fuel supplied prior to 1990, the identification of c u s p s is difficult, if not in.possible.

so, we t.hcught it would be b~lpft~l to contact the major oil companies to gauge their potential interest in methanol as a bl~nd/ng agent or as neat fuel. To this end %~ contacted m~st of t~e major

domestic oil companies through their fuel supply or plarm/ng divisions. In general terms, t_his extensive set of phone i n t e r v i ~ confirmed our Mmst firms (I) of high

macro analysis of the .methanol fuel market d scribed above. expressed ~zme interest in purchasing methanol if it ~are:


quali~] and (2) priced ccspstitlvely with wholesalQ gasoline prices when delivered to their refinery's gate. However, most firms found it

difficult to be more definitive about such long range pla~n/r.g for a n~v .5/el ccr~onent such as methanol. However, ~ o z~ed finns zxpressed strong interest in methanol and each i00 million gallons-De.r-year after 1990.

to use o ~ r

The conc!usiens ,~ can draw f.~m this discussion are as follc~s: (i) ~vethanol can penetrate the automobile fuel market as a blending agent w~.n it is priced at or below wholesale gasoline prices, or equivalently when methanol is priced at or below 76 percent of the price or retail gasoline. (2) Methanol is ccspetitive with gasoline in fleet applications when it is priced at or below 71.5 percent of retail gasoline. (3) If methanol is appropriately priced, it can penetrate a huge market on the order of 800 to 2,400 million gallons-per-year by. 2000 (see Table 5). The price ratios shown above represent the highest price ratio at which methanol can be ccmpetiti~. by 1990 is likely this to drive Competition among methanol suppliers the price significantly lower. To price


likelihood we


~he three methanol

scenarios in Table 7.

The .Future price of gasoline is the guiding (19B2). Since ~

mechanism, and we took the DOE's latest estimates DOE's estimates ~ r e

in 1980 dollars w~ adjusted for the effects of

inflation by utilizing Chase Econometrics (!981) long-term forecast for inflation. The Chase forecast was used both because it is a good By

professional forecast and it is the forecast used by the DOE itself.


this measure, gasoline prices will grow at a compound rate of i0 percent per year through 2020. Thrco price profiles for methanol were developed. The base case

assumes that betw~_n 1982 and 2000 mthanol will be prices at 50 percent of gasoline. Thereafter, methanol prices increase by 8 percent-per-

year. The low price alternative foresees methanol prices at 45 percent o~ gasoline prices frcm 1982 to 1985. Between 1985 and 2000 methanol

supplies will increase substantially holding price rises below the 45 percent-of-gasoline price level. percent-per-year. After 2000 methanol prices rise 7

The high price alterr~tive envisions methanol priced

a~ 55 percent of gasoline until 2000. Thereafter msthanol's price rises 8.5 percent per year.

2.1 Methanol supp_ lies - 1985 and beyond At the present ~ methanol is not used as a fuel. However,

methanol is an important chemical feedstock used in a variety of applications. Thus, methanol is produced prmarily by chemical firms, and

much of this production is for their own internal uses. The dcrnestic production capacity is 17,260 tons per day. Realis(1.7

tically, these plants car. produce 15,000 to 15,500 tons per day billion gallons-per-year).

Since domestic constmpt/on of methanol is

expected to be in the 13,000 to 14,000 ton-per-day range and expor~s of up to 1,000 tons are expected during the early 1980s, the market for chemical grade methanol appears to be in balance (Collieries, 1980, pp. 20-34). The typical methanol plant contains one or two methanol synthesis trains (at 1,000 to 1,500 tons--per-de.v). Natural gas is the predominant



Capirml costs for t~e typical plant are on ~he order or Today a plant operating on natural To produce

$0.50 per annual gallon of capaciml.

gas would cost about $1.40 per annual gallon of capacity.

methanol frcm f e e d s ~ k s like oil, coal, or wood requires a more elaborate plant which costs more to build and operate (Collieries, 1980, pp. 20-34). in the near-term methanol production will rise. First, r.he near-

term outlook for derand is positive, and demand is forecast to rise by nearly I0 percent-per-year between 1980 and 1985 reaching scm~nere

between 5.4 and 6.3 million tons ~, 1985 with little or no dz~and for met~3nol as a fuel {.Chemical Week (1980), pp. 24; Cb~m%ical and Engineering News (1980), .up. 16; ~cyclopedia of Chemic~l Technology (1981), pp.. 413). Second producers are planning some ~xpansions. Getty oil is

planning to open a 150 million gallon-per-year

(1,350 tons-per-day)

facility, in Delaware City, Delaware and a ccnscrtium of firms plans a 200 million gallon-per-year (1,800 tons-per-day) facili~i in Louisiana in 1983-1985 (Bentz, et al., pp. i06). If these plants cc~e on line as planned annual procution capacity. potentially could rise to 6.7 million tons-per-year a s s ~ : (I) none

of ~he existing plants are retired and (2) a 90 percent operating rate. However, a number of t, existing plants are old ar~ mTall. be Th~s, if

scrne of the existinc~ plants do close and the demand forecasts turn out to be accurate, i~orts of methanol may have to rise. In any e%~_nt, the

dcmestic methanol market will be tight [Collieries, 1980, pp. 28-30). THUS, if methanol does beccme an attractive autcnmtive fuel--%,hich it is


likely to be the case by 1990, there will have to be a rapid increase in methanol production capacity.


~than~l from Eucalyptus wood chips


Overview Tee BESI concept for producLng m~nhanol from Eucalyptus involves

three types of operations:

(1)a tissue culture laboratoqt and nursery

to provide the over 50 million seedlings needed for t~e planting program, (2) a 70,000 acre Eucalyptus energy plantation to produce the 1.3 million tons of wood per year required for the methanol production facility, and (3} a 100 million gallon-per-year (i,000 ton per day)

methanol production facility.

The BESI project can be characterized as

a vertically integrated methanol production program based on a renewable feedstock, Eucalyptus wood. The project is to be located in Central Florida (South%~stern PoLk County) cn lands previously strip .mined for phosphate. is an optim~n site for a Eucalyptus-to-n~thanol reasons. Central Florida

facility, for a number of Central Florida

First Eucalyptus grcw prolifically on ~

climate and soils, and the trees thrive cn the sites of old phosphate mines {more on this below). Second, the Central Florida location offers

substantial opportunities for acquiring the 70,000 acres needed for the Eucalyptus enz~/l plantation, metbmnol production facility, and tissue culture lab. Third, the Central Florida region possess substantial Fourth, land in t.he area is reathat a site could be readily

water resources which can be used. sonably priced. Research indicates

assembled at around $750 per acre.

Finally, since t~e region is also



location of Florida's phosphate mining


(which is n~v

largely scut.h of the site for the Eucalvptus-tm-methar.ol facili~f), e.xtem.sive infrastructure for moving materials is already in place.

Rail, truck, and barge transportation is readily available.

3.2 M@croeconu~/c as sunpt/ons AssLmptions abcut macroeconcmic trends (prices, interest rates,

output, etc.) fol.-n the under pinning for all forecasts used in this study. For e.~mple, prcj~ctions for future prices and availability of

gasoline in the U.S. depend upon world oil prices and dcmestic economic conditions. Forecasts of future energy prices are a crucial input for

this study, and w~ used forecasts developed by t~he U.S. Department of Energy extensively in Sections 2 and 3 of this study. The DOE in turn based its energy, forecasts on a long-run macroeconcmic forecast

developed by Chase Econcmetrics. Table 8 ~ i z e s lares the forecast to ~ ~hase forecast for 1980-1995 and zx~rapo Although the Chase forecast contains


cyclical episodes, these are obscured by the averaging process used LnTable 8. Over the entire forecast period from 1980-1995 Chase projects

moderate econumic growth at 2.7 percent-per-year measured hy growth in real ~NP. T~e growth rate slcws toward the end of the period, and w ~ n

it is ~xtrapolated to 2020, the average growth for !995 to 2020 is 2.6 percent. The Chase forecast envisions Dart/cular strength in the

manufacturing sector over the forecast horizon.

Here gr~.Th accelerates

frcm the 3.3 perc~_nt rate posted frcm 1970 to 19B0 to a 4.3 percent average in the 19780-1995 interval. Extrapolating out to 2020 the


series grcws at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent.

Throughout the

forecast period Chase expects the relative size of the gaverD4~_nt sector to shrink while manufacturing growth is spurred hy higher levels of investment. Real per capita income will post annual average gains of 2 percentE-year t~mough 2020. While this represents a marked improvement

ccmpared to 1979-1982, it is scmewhat belcw average ccr~ared to 19701980. Inflation is projected to slew throughout the period. T~ pace

of general price inflation will dec_line ~rum almost 7 percen~ in 19701980 to 6 percent in 1995-2020. The deceleration of prices is even more After

apparent in the series on prices for nonresidential inves~rents. the rapid 7.7 percent average increase ~ _ r i e n c e d

during the 1970s,

inflation in the price of investment goods should slow to an average of 5.5 percent between 1995 and 2020. The first few years of the 1980s have witnessed unprecedented peaks in interest rates. Lately rates have moved d~wn frcm their peaks, but Chase forecasts that However, this

they are still very high by historical standards.

rates will decli~.e to the i0 percent range by. 1988.

implies an average AA bond rate of 12.5 percent and a prime rate of 12.8 percent for the 1980-1995 interval. These forecasted values are important inputs to the financial analyses presented below. In addition, by. using the same national for our analysis are

forecast as DOE used, the underlying a s s u ~ o n s

identical to those used by DOE in forecasting energy prices.


Table 8.--Ge/.eral macrceconcmic asstmp~ions for selected economic variables (growhh rates per year, percent unless otherwise stated) !970-19801 Real gross national produc ~ Real industrial production, manufacturing Peal per capita disposable inccme ~NP price deflator Price deflator for nonresidential investment Population AA bond rate Prime rate Sources: 3.2 3.3 2.2 6.9 7.7 0.8 8.9 8.7 1980-19952 2.7 4.3 2.0 6.7 6.9 0.9 12.5 12.8 1995-20203 2.6 4.2 2.0 6.0 5.5 0.8 10.0 I0.0

icitibase: Citibar/~ economic database. 2C/%ase Econometrics, Inc., Long-Term Mac.~econcmic Forecasts and ~malvsis, October 6, 1981 as reported in Energy Informa~on Administration (1982), pp. xiii. 3Extrapolation.


3.3 Tis~e ~itu~e i~ and nurse~

Tee tissue culture lab and nursery, cc~plzv, is described in ~ b r ~ Document No. 2, Vegetative Propagauion of Eucalypts. The lab and

nursery, are designed to provide sufficient, high quality, D/calyptus seedlings for BESI's extensive planting program. Commercial application (1) estab(2)

of tissue culturing Ln vitro involves four distinct stages:

I/shrent of select plant materials Ln a bact~_ria-free culture, r~itiplication o4 plant materials,

(3) rooting of the propagules, and As part of from

(4) acclimation of the propagules to nursery conditior~.

this research BESI has successfully tissue cultured Eucalypts select mother trees growing in Central Florida.

This exercise not only

proves that Eucalypts can be successfully reproduced by tissue culturing, but it also establishes a firm basis for costing out the process. T~ bicmass production of a eucalypt energy plantation, envisioned

for t~his project, is dependent in part upon a c~mbina~icn of environmental factors, including soil structure and fertility, average sunlight and t~m~/ature, precipitation quantity and distribution, vegetative

ccmpetition, and pathogen in~act; but the average genetic quality_ of the ~e_s tial. is ~ e single most influential factor detezminin~ gr~.~h poten-

-m~e genetic system of Eucalyptus is s u ~ that native seed popu-

lations include a diversi~.z of genetic types--and consequently, a wide range of envirorcaental adaptability within the species. This diversity

is b~neficial in providing families ada.Dt~ to a particular environmental niche (e.g., pho~_b~te mine spoils, native flatwoods soils,

high-salt soils).

}k~sver, it is very difficult to capture desirable E~calypts show pronounced "hybrid

geno~zlDes for seedling production.

vigor"; and, conversely, suffer tremendous "inbreeding depression"when




frcra self-pollination

(Eldridge, 1978).


available seed is genetically heterogeneous.

Plant/ng stock produced

frcm it will invariably yield "aces and spaces" (E. C. Franklin, Pers. Ccsm. ). survive. This -kind of performance is not acceptable for an energy, plantar.ion. Lnstead what is needed is a uniform stand of vigorously grcwing trees. This alternative can be acccmplished by. selected a series of That is there will be cuns very g~od trees and some t ~ t do not

genetica.~ly superior trees frcm a seedling plantation or natural stand, these genou-2pes are vegetatively propagated, field-tested and then

expanded to provide a L%niformly high-yielding planting stock. This task is facilitated by the location of t%D significant stands of Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Florida. ~ g on restored phosphate mine lands in Central

BESI has selected the best of these trees for "mother tmees"

in the clonal seedling program. As part of the present study, we have examined the feasibility of large-scale plantation establishment by various methods, and have

reached the follc~ing conclusions. i. Seedling plantations are limited in potential yield due to genetic variation among the planting stock and often inadequate supplies of appropriate seed. 2. veqetative propagation by rooted cuttings can provided good genetic uniformi~j of select hybrid plant/rig stock; h~w~ver, large-scale production requires esr~%bli~hment and maintenance of extensive cutting crc~nrds. T,~e co1--1ection cf s~ots and

preparation of cuttings, although successfully implemented in


the Congo and Brazil, would not be econumically feasible in Florida for large-scale plantations. 3. Tissue culture propagation of select hybrid eucalyp=s offers the only c~portunity to produce the very large ntm~er of trees required to establish the energy plantation. t/ssue culture propagation, The cost of

although higher than seedling

production, is more than off-set by the increased productivity. of vegetative plantations established from select hybrid

Eucalyptus (Working Document No. 2, 1982, pp. 2). Workin9 Docurent No. 2, Vegetative Propagation of Eucalypts,

describes the process of establishing select field material Ln culturing, rmlltiplying the cultures, rooting, and acc//nmt/ng the seedlings to the nursery. Table 9 outlines the method by wh/ch 7.5 million, select, Stage

D/calyptus, seedlings can be produced over the span of i0 manths.

I of the process invclves the establishment of select field mterial in culture. Although this step is a vital prerequisite to Eucalypt producit has little affect on the timing or yield of Stage IIA involves the

t.ion via culturing,

seedlings. Thus it is not included in Table 9.

maltiplication of the plant material, and Stage IIB allows t.he material to elongate and multiply further. develops roots, nursery. .~nd Stage At Stage IIi the culture material the seedlings to the

IV is acclimating



- , ,,,,

Culture Stage ~nthlv_ ActivitiesI'2 II !I I( IIB 468 j ~ S ( i ~ ) "10%3

~nths 0ct-J~l

.,C-~Towing S_mace

Personnel4 0.4

5570 jars + 570 jars (I m)| -5~ 5292 jars 4~ H 17,200 jars (0.5 mo) 17,200jars i 32,682 ]ars 9,800 tins (0.5 m ) -5%

18 m2(195 ft2)

Nov-Aug 51 m2(550 ft2) 30.0


9 800 tins

291 m2(3100 ft 2) innoculators

i!I IV

17,648 tins


-i0% 360 m2(3845 ft 2)

culture rocm area

Dec-Sep 1280 m2{13,770 ft 2) 1280 m2(13,770 ft 2)


882,418 plantlet~ (3 too)

greenhouse workers

Nursery 750,055 trees

1280 m2(13,770 ft 2) Mar-Dec 3840 m2(41,300 ft2)

861 acres
,, ,,,,

greenhouse area

Note i. Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Source:

Production of 750,000 treeslmcnth, ten months per year. Single a r z ~ (---9), incubation steps, double arrows ( ~ ) ~-ansfe_~steps. Negativ~ % associated with i~cubation steps indlcate alluwances for losses. Personnel figures include no supervisory or support staff. Working Document No. 2 (1982), pp. 48.


Table i0 provides coat est/n~tms for t ~ and lab equipment developed in Working ~ t

tissue culture laboratory No. 2. In addition, the

table shcws the major assumptions which influence the estimated cost per

As noted in Working Document No. 2 the most important variables in detenn/nLng the cost for t/ssue-culture propagated seedlings are: m/lt.iplication rates, (2) failure rates, and (3) labor costs. (i)


cation rates have a dramatic affect Qn total cost per seedling because the higher t~.e multiplication rate the lower the cost-per-plant for most lab operations. The reverse is true for losses- .-more losses lead to Since labor costs account for over

higher cost per finished seedling.

50 percent of total costs, the affect is obvious on finished seedling costs. The tissue culture lab and nursery facility (to be rented) are to sense the needs of BESI's planting program exclusively. Thus, the

market for superior Eucalyptus seedli~Igs is assured. The seedlings are priced to provide a 20 percent return after taxes.


Table 10.---Oata and asstmlotions for the tissue culture lab and nursery. (1982 dollars)
m , , , ,,,,,

Tissue culture laboratory Laboratory e~ipmant Tissue culture multiplications rates: Stage II a State II b Estimated losses: Stage II a multiplication Stage I. b elongation ~ Stage ~I rooting Stage IV nursery grcwth Labor costs Price per finished seedling

$320,000.00 $150,000.00 multiplication 13 elongation lO 5% 5% 10% 15% $6 per hour $0.30

Table ll.---Financial analysis--Bicmass Energy System, Inc. tissue culture lab and nursed!

sm= ions--sca rio

i. Base case: asmmptions as per Table i0, Nor.king ~ t No. i, and Chase Econometrics Increased losses and lower nult/plicat/on rates: losses at each stage are increased by 5 percentage points and nultiplication rates at Stage II are reduced by I0 percent ~ procedures: elimination of Stage III culture and autcmation of Stage II cultures

Internal rate of return





Table ii contains a financial analysis fcr the tissue culturenurseDj operation. Under the base case assumptions outlined in Table i0

and in Working Document No. 2, the internal rate of return for tb~ project is 20.4 percent after taxes. This rate of presumes a 30 centper-seedling price and was calculated on a discounted, cash, flow, basis. As noted in Working Dccunent No. 2, the est/mates for cost-perseedling are quite sensitive to variations in the multiplication and ~he failure rate. Scenario 2, "increased losses and I o ~ r multiplication rates" atten.mts to capture the downside risk. Here, the loss rates are all increased by 5 percentage points and the Stage II multiplication rates are reduced by I0 percent. Should this set of circumstances

transpire, the internal rate of return would fall to 13.2 percent. There is also significant cpportunities for achieving l~wer costs by automating sane Stage II processes and by eliminating the Stage III culture step. The resulting economics push the prospective inter~l

rate of return to 37.3 percent. Bicmass Energy Systems, Inc. has o~_rated a tissue culture lab for over ~ o years ncw. This practical z~q~-rie.nce is the foundation for the 2 and used in this

cost estimates presented in Working DcctTaent No. analysis.

In addition, our ~klDerience indicates that an expanded tissue to support the

culture lab can pruvide t~a 7.5 million seedlings p ~ d planting program and be a profit center in its own right.


Eucal.vptusenezgy plantation " The Eucalyptus energy plantation is the second ~ajor ccmponent oH

BESI's Eucalvptus-to-met~hanol project.

Conceptually, ~his phase of the


project ~ s

as its inputs select seedlings from the tissue culture-

nursery, phase, installs the seedlings, maintains ~he Eucalvpuus plantation, harvests t/-.ewood, and delivers it to the methanol refine~,-. Each of these steps was describe in ~orkin~ Docum~t No. I, The Florida Eucalyptus Energy Fazm--Silvicultural .v~..thDdsand Considerations. BESl has selected Eucalyptus Camaldulensis as the initial s~cies for energy_ plantation. Camaldulensis First, has a number of desirable

properties for t_his project. grcwth in central Florida.

Camaldulensis ~v.hibits vigorous

BEST has studied two stands of Camaldulensis

grcwing on restored phosphate mine lard in Central Florida--conditions cc~parable to those BESI proposes to use. -"hese stands, w.hidn were Seccnd, t~e for

given very little care, show some exceptional growth.

existing Camaldulensis provide a sot%rce of select plant ~terial tissue culturing and clcnal production of seedlings.


Camaldulensis is known worldwide for its rapid grc~Wch, tolerance of adverse conditions, and mode_rate resistance to freeze damage. Ce~nldulensis has not produced an alm/ndant viable seed crop. Fourth,

This helps

to address the environmantal concern about the escape of t.his "~otic." Fi.'~h, the ~w/sting Camaldulensis stands have demDnstrated a resistance to insects, die, ease, and fire. Sixth, Camaldulensis achieves its best form under dense stocking, and it does not . .~m~ire zxtensive manag~re_nt. Finally, Camaldulensis ccpices readily---~hen cat in sprouts back frc~ stump el/m//~ting the need for replanting (Working Docu~e-nt ~b. i, pp. 14-15). Plantation design will emphasize maximizing bicmass production. Seedlings will be planted 5 feet apart in t/~ r~4 with r ~ s feet apart. spaced 10 871

This design will allow for a stocking density of



At this density :amaldulensis will ~hibit good form,

and yet have su/ficient room for our sh~rt-rotation period of 7 years. The plantation design calls for reasonably long rows to facilitat~ the use of machinery, and clonal planting blocks of 160 acres each (Working Docuremt No. l, 1982, pp. 92-96). Silvicultural practices are designed to maximize rapid initial growth. Research indicates that the first year is the most crucial in Site preparation is the key

terms of ult~./aate bicmass yield at harvest. to good bicmass yields. depending applies: on local

Although site preparation may vary. somewhat the following general presori'ption


(I) heavy discing and chopping coupled with removal of debris (2) light discing, (3) soil testing, (4) raking to a

if necessary,

srcoth level surface if necessary, and (5) bedding in potentially wet sites. Control of vegetative competition is crucial, and herbicides may be used if needed [Working Docanent No. I, 1982, pp. 75-78). Since soil moisture conditions and the lack of frost are crucial to the successful establishment of Eucalypts, planting will not be done in the cold and dry winter months. Planting will be done by machine from

Speedling Planters (Working Document No. i, 1982, pp. 75-98). Once r~latively establis~nent little ks insured, a Control Eucalyptus of plantation needs



ccs~etition, Proper site

however, is vital in the early years of the plantation.

preparation should minindze %t=ed competition, and after a year or so the Eucalypts will cont_~pl the site. So, herbicides may be needed during first year, and at harvest time. In addition, the plantation r.Ist However, Eucalypts are not

be monitored for fire, insects, and disease.

particularly prone to problems in these regards, and in fact have proven


tO be very hardy and ~ s t 1982, pp. 112-120).

and disease free (Working Document No. i,

Harvesting will be done usi~.g standard logqing equipment.


tree harves'~,_tngoperation n~ist accomplish four ~sks, felling, skidding, yarding, and hauling. Since the rotation period will be 7 years, the

plantation grown Eucalypts are projected to be between 6 and 8 inches in diameter, 50 to 70 feet tall, and to %~igh around 600 pounds (more cn t~s below). Thus, a sr.~ndard motorized feller/buncher will be used.

Four-wheel drive rubber-tired skidders will nDve the logs to the end of the rcws and assemble t.hem in piles. There the trees will be t o p ~ ,

delimbed, and loaded on to trailers for delivery to the methanol plant. ~he tops and limbs will be chipped in the field, and ~ chips will also

be brought to the plant (Working Document No. i, 1982, pp. 121-131). BESI research (Working Document No. I, 1982, pp. 133-137) indicates t~mt a 7 year rotation will produce prolific amounts of biunass, 154 green tons per harvest are ~xpected. tons per acre per year. This yield is .equivalent to ll dry

This estimate was developed by first z~amining

existing stands of Camaldulensis gr~ing an reclaimed phosphate mine land in central Florida. These stands received little care after Overall survival rates ranged

planting and select seed was not used.

from 45 percent On the poorest sites to 75 percent on the better sites. Thus, the stands axe characterized by. wide variation among individual trees which is to be expected. However, the stands also contain a At 6.3 years the largest tree was

substantial number of superior trees.

!6.4 inches in diameter at breast height, and t~e tallest tree was 97 feet (Working Document No. i, 1982, pp. 66-73).


Data .~rcm t/~e ~v/sting stands o~ Camaldulensis were extrapolated for our yield estimate of 154 green tons par harvest. We assumed that

th~ averag~ tree wo~id be between 6 and 8 inches in diameter at 7 years, a modest asstmption given the number of outstanding individual trees in the stands. Further adjustments ~ncluded: dansi~, to 871 per acre, (i) increasing the planting

(2) allcwance for a more even stand at 6-8

inches in diameter, at breast height, at 7 years t~ough the use of

tissue culture ~edllngs drawn from superior "mother" trees, (3) improved site preparation and control of vegetative competition, and (4)
increased survival to 70 percent. With this background we turn next to an analysis of the econcmics of producing Eucalyptus feedstock to service t~e needs of the methanol production Corporation facility. ~%gineering estimates by Evergreen Ener~f

(Working Document No. 8, 1982, pp. 4) indicate that the

plant will require 1,990 dry tons of Eucalyptus feedstock per day. Since the plant is designed to operate 330 days per year and t.he Eucalyptus is 50 percent .~ater when cut, feedstock requirements are 1,313,4000 tons per year. If the yield at harvest is 154 green tuns per

acre at each harvest every 7 years, 8,529 acres nust be harvest each ~.~ar. Allowing for roads, staging areas, and the like (at 15 percent) this zequires 9,B08 acres for each years feedstock. years 68,655 acres in total are needed. Table 12 lists all of the data and assumptions used in the economic analysis. All of these are described in Working Docurent No. 1 except Over a period of 7

t_he following:



rent and management fees are designed to provide adec~a., ~e compensation for managing the plantation operation and for paying local ~xes (which'are minimal on a per acre basis);


the market price for feedstock is designed to provide a !5 percen~ return after t~xes--since the market and price are assured by purchases from the refinery, this return is adequate;




repo~ No. 8,




Corporation, System,

Wcrkinq Document

[gcod-Fueled Gasification

est/mates that 1,990 d.~- tons of wood will be needed each day of cperaticn (330 days per year), at 50 percent moisture this means 330 x 1,990 x 2 = 1,313,400 green tons of w~od are needed each year; (4) approximately 15 percent of the total land available for

growing E~calvptus n~/st be devoted to roads, staging areas, etc. ; (5) the land cost on an acre basis was estimated in ~rk~ng Document No. 9, The Florida .Eucalyptus Energy Farm and

Methanol Refi~er~. - the Econcmic Analysis, Section 4.1 above; (6) the net corporate tax rate is assumed to be 40 percent to reflect the various write-o~fs allowed for agricultural

operations of this type; and (7) a mortgage is obtained for t~he l~nd witch a 10 perc~t down payment at i percent above the prime rate. Based .upon these assumptions Table 13 presents ~ financial analy-


Ln the base case the plantation provides a 14.7 percent return

after =taxes. No rev~m.ues are generated for the first seven years of


operation when land is acquired, trees are p 'lanted, and they grow.


the first harvest cares in year 8, substantial net cash inflows ccmmence. Expenses for land acquisition (i0 percent down and a 30 year

mortgage), planting and management total $92.5 million during the first 7 years of operation. capital. It is asstm~d that all of t~ese funds are equity

~D the ~x~ent that debt is used in developing the Eucalyptus tb~ internal rate of return will rise. Hcwever, to be


c~nservative we have assumed 100 percent ec~ty financing except for the land.

Table 12.---Data and as.~umptions for the Eucalyptus ene_~3y plantation (1982 dollars)
,, , , ,

Cost per ~ l l / n g Number of seedldmgs per acre Installation cost per acre Fertilizing and herbicing per acre Survival rate for seedlings Years to maturity Harvest cost per tun Yield at maturity per acre every. 7 years Fixed cost for property, taxes and managenant per acre ~ r k e t price of feedstock per green ton Tons of wood required per year Additional acreage needed for roads, staging areas F etc. Macroeconcmic assumptions land cost ~ acre Total net tax rate Ymrtgag~ rate

$0.30 871 $500.00 $60.00 70%-80% 7 $I0.00 154 green tons

$20.00 $20. O0 1,313,400 15% of total acreage Chase Econcmetrics $750.00 40% prime plus 1%

Sources: Working Dccument No. 1, ~ Florida Eucalyptus ~ergy Farm --Silvicultural Methods and Conside.raticns, and Chase ~cncmetrics (1981), op. cir.


Table 13.---~inancial analysis--Bicmass Energy. System, Inc. Eucalyptus energy plantation Assumptions--scenario I. Base case: Chase Econometrics, other assumptions BESI Low yield: 25 ~ercent less yield to i15.5 green tons per acre per harvest High yield: 25 percent more yield to 192.5 green tons per a ~ e per harvest Higher inflation: one percent above Chase $12/ton in 1982 $8/ton i~ 1982 prime plus 2 Lnter~. ml rate of return


2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

11.4% 17.4% !5.8% 12.3% 17.0% 14.4%

Higher harvest cost: Io%~_r harvest cost: Higher mortgage rat~:

Te investigate the sensitivi~l of the rate of return es ~t/mate we examined an array of seven alternative financial scenarios "in Table 13. BEST research suggests that Eucalyptus yields will be 154 green tonsper-acre per harvest (every 7 years). be greater or smaller than this. possibilities. P~%~ver, yields ~Tay turn out to Scenarios 2 and 3 ~plore these (at

If yields ~mre in 25 percent below ~xpectat/ons

115.5 green tc.-~-per-acre ~ return falls to 11.4 percent. percent higher than ~ c ~ d , cent.

harvest), the after-tax internal rate-ofBy contrast, if ac~ml yields are 25

the after tax return jumps to 17.4 per-

Scenario 4 ~v~mlines the in~act of a higher t~h~ forecast level of price inflation. The total affect of a 1 percent higher rate of inThis occurs

flation is to raise the rate-of-return to 15.8 percent.

because both costs and revenues are inc_~.ased when inflation ri~es, and ~.he revenue affect dominates.


Scenarios 5 and 6 ~plore the affects of harvest costs on profitability. Harvesting costs are the largest single cost item for the If harvesting costs are 20 percent above BESI's estimate of By contrast, if


$i0 per ten, profitability falls to 12.3 percent.

harvest/rig costs ccme in at $8 per ton, profitability, increases to 17.0 percent. The fir~l scenario involves a higher mortgage rate, prime plus 2 percent. The h~pact on overall profitability, is sma/3., and the interP~l

rata-of-return declines to 14.4 percent.


~Vethanol ~rc~ction facility To simplify greatly, we c~n characterize the productien of methanol

as a two step process: syn~_sis. sis gas, hydrogen.

(I) production of synthesis gas and (2) methanol

In step cne an appropriate feedstock is conve_~ted to synthea mixture of carbon moncxi~;, carbon dioxide, water, and

Ln step t%D the synthesis gas is converted to methanol.

For ~Dst conv~ticnal methanol plants using natural gas as the feedstcck, w~ can characterize the cheuical processes as follows: (I) Natural ~as (CH4) is converted into synthesis gas in a steam reforme.r. C42 H20 ~ CO + ~H2 or CH 2 + 2H20- 3H 2 (2) The gas is desulfurized, ccoled, cleaned of unreacted steam

and Ir~mlrities, and ccr~ressed. (3) The cool ccnpressed .synthesis gas is converted to methanol under pressure in presence of cataly~s. The process is High

characterized by the pressure at %~ich it operates: pressure systems use

zinc-~hroniun oxide catalystsand Icw

9rasm=e systems use c ~ .


(4) Tb~ raw methanol is condermed, cleaned, and distilled (See Collieries, 1980, pp. B5-B7; Encyclopedia of Chemical Technol~, 1981, Vol. 15; Paul, 1978, pp. 4-26, 107-238; or Da%~

McKee, 1981, for more detailed discussion). The methanol plant envisioned by BEST is essentially ~ e existing methanol plants. substitution of ~ gas feedstocks. Technical details about the methanol produc~ion facility are sa~e as

The only major difference involves the

as the feedstock for ~he more traditional na~ural

contained in Working Document 7, Feasibility. Study_ Eucal.vptus to 1000 S ~ D ~thanol P_lant in South Central Plorida, by Davy. McKee and Working Document No. 8, The Wo~-Fueled Gasification Svs~tem, by Evergreen Energy Corporation. These doctme~ts describe the engineering and operating In addition, t~he two engineering studies

aspects of the methanol plant.

provide capital and operating cost estimates for the methanol facility. ~he Davy YF-2ee study provides a cc~p. lete preliminary engineering design for the entire methanol production facility from t ~ w~od at the factomy to the load out of finished methanol mined the ~ receipt of Davy deter-

size plant was 1,000 tons per day. The Davy design proven cunponents for every phase of the

incorporates ~ c i a l l y design.

The major process risk involves the scale up of t/~ Davy. Otherwise the

fixed-bed up-draft oxygen-blown gasifier to utilize wood. BESI facility is ~ a b l e except the f~Is~oc} is ~ .

in many ways to existing methanol plant


~%ile Davy developed an excellent, preliminary, engineering, design study, methanol produced using this design was judged to be uneconomical for three reasons. percent. S~cond, First, overall thermal efficiency is very low, 33.3 the design r ~ e s excessive amounts of process

water, 4 million gallons-per-day (~EG), and generated large quantities of agueous effluent, 1.5 MGD. Third, the design requizes too much wrxx~

~eedstock--c~er 6,000 tons per day (green). The main problem in the Davy. design is ~b~ gasifier. The Davy gasifi~r operates at atmDspheric

pressure, at relatively low ten!0~_ratures uses steam to regulate +~e , gasification process, and r~qu/res long residence time in the gasifier. These characteristics are wasteful from the perspective of thermal

efficiency, they requi~e increased wood feedstock and water, and they produce excessive waste water effluent. To resolve scme of these difficulties Evergreen Energy Corporation examined the prel/minary Eucalyptus-to-methanol design and redesigned the gasifier and associated facilities. entrained-bed gasifier for the project. Evergreen selected the Texaco The Texaco gasifier operates at ResiUsing

high temperatures and pressures and is an oxygen blown process. dence times are short, and virtually no tars or oil are produced.

this design thermal efficiency increases from 33.3 percent to 49.7 percent, required feedstock is reduced to 1,998 tons per day (a 34

percent savings), make up water declines by 46 percent to 2.2 M6D, and waste water is reduced by one-half to 0.8 MGD. While the Evergreen design can produce methanol at a more ccmpetitlve price, there are greater process risks involved. The increased

risk relates to the use of the Texaco gasifier which has never been


tested on wood.

Evergreen pl~ns such tests in 1983, but until then this

does represent a major process risk. Other aspects of the Evergreen and Davy. designs are essentially the same. For ~ m p l e , the total capital costs for either the Davy. or

Evergreen design are virtually identical--S250 million Davy compared to $243.4 million for Evergreen's design. merits are identical. Evergreen design. Figure 2 provides a f l ~ chart for the methanol plant which is In addition, m a n ~ require-

Thus, all ~_hings considered we shall adopt the

described be!cw, and Table 14 contains the materials balance for the plant.

i .H







al "o





i, Ol O31

I ~= , =~



o E







, ,

e=4 O

= u~

c r..1
gr} O.

Y z

' !


= ~J 0 -J


C 0




Table 1 4 . ~ g i n e e r i n g da~a ccmparison FL,~ed Bed Gasification Da,q ~=Kee Process

. . . . n ,, ,, , . . ..

Enurained Bed Gasification T~xacoEvergreen Process

A. Raw Materials and Utilities In

, , , ,,

i. Eucalyptus Wood (DD.tbasis Feedstock Fuel (wood) 2. Well Water ~ k e u p 3. Electricial Power 4. Natural Gas B. Products Out i. Fuel Grade Methanol 2. Treated Waste Water 3. Ash & Unccn~_rted Carbon C. Total Installed Cost of Plant (mi&L~on ~ILirs D. Catalysts and Chemicals Cost per ton of methanol

1,995 STPD 1,052 STPD 2,800 GPM 21,500 ~ 0

1,990 SX~.D 0 !,500 GPM 9,600 ~ 2.2 ~I~CFD

1,000 STP.D 1,060G~M 14.8 STPD

1,000 STPD 550 GPM 48.0 STPD

250.0 $5.66 186 33.3%

$4.10 186 49.7%

F. Thermal Efficiency Source- Evergreen Energy Corporation.


Table 15 contains the data and assumptions used to evaluate the economics of the mathanol production facility. Since Section 2

discussed the forecast for m~thanol prices, _~/rther here. G~neral economic a s s ~ ' o n s

these are not examined for inflatlon, interest

rates, ~nd ~he like are drawn frun Chase Econcmetric's forecast shown in Table 6. The engineering cost estimate for the plant is taken from No. 8). A t~xee

Evergreen Energy Corporation's design (~rking ~ t

year buildout period is assumed to being in 1978. Cash e.~penditures are timed at .90 percent, 60 percent, and 20 percent over ~b~ construction ~cle. The initial cost estimate for the Evergreen designed plant is

escalated by the inflation rate for investments in plant and equipment (from Chase). During the construction cycle, the unbuilt fraction of the D =lant continues to escalate in price.


Table 15.---Oata and assumptions for ~-he methanol production facility

, ,w,,

Economic assunptions Capital costs P ~ n t costs [1982 dollars) Construct/on timing - three year building period cccmencing in 1987. Cash ~xpenditures of 20 percent, 60 percent, and 20 percent for 1987, 1988, and 1989 respectively. S~-t-up costs I~nd Financing Equity inves~Te-nt Working capital Principal payments Interest payments

Chase Econometrics


$10,000,000 500 acres at $5,000 ~ (1982 dollars) acre

60 percent of installed plant costs 2.8 percp~t of plant costs 20 year AA bonds 3 issues floated in 1987, 1988, and 1989 AA bond rate at issue date

Operati~ costs

$20 per green ton as pf 1982 and 1.3 milicn tons-per-year required $4.10 per ton output Da%,] MnKee estimates of manpuwer priced accordingly by BESI Amounts from Evergreen at market prices ~ r k e t rates, delivery to Houston 2.25 percent of installed costs 5 percent of instated cost from Davy ~Fee_

Catalyst and chenicals Labor

Utilities Shipping, handlLng and insurance Property tax and administration Maintenance


Start u9 costs were assumed to be $i0 million, and start up is scheduled for the first half o~ 1990. Full production begins in t.he

second half of 1990. Land for t ~ pl~nt and its wood piles requires 500 acres which cost S5,000 per acre in 1982. This cost escalates at the general inflation rate unit 1987 when the land is purchased. The plant is financed with 60 percent equity capital and 40 percent debt (bonds). Any cperating deficits are .Tade up by. contributions of additicnal equity. plan~ costs. Working capital requirements are 2.8 percent of

Bonds are AA corporate debentures requiring s~i-annual Sinking funds are established to retire t~he bonds. Operating

interest payments.

These si~king funds accrue interest at the prime bank rate. costs are dcminated by feedstock zxpenses.

Over 1.3 million tens of

feedstock are needed per year. The 1982 price is $20 per ten, and this increases with inflation. Evergreen Energy calculates that $4.10 in This price also

catalysts and chemicals are used per ton oE output. increases with Lnf!ation. McKee.

L~bor requirements were estimated by Davy.

These escalate with inflation and run $4.7 million in 1982.

E%~rgreen est/mates the quantities of electricity_ and natural gas needed for the plant. as foll~s: In 1982 these would cost $5.6 million, and they escalate (I) electricity at the general inflation rate and (2)

natural gas at an accelerated pace taken frcm Chase's forecast. Shipping and handling charges are calculated from the plant site in Southwestern Po/~( County by truck to Tampa (l.1 cents per gallon) Houston by barge (0.3 cents per gallon). to

The rates are current market Insurance is assumed

quotes, so these prices increase with inflation.

to cost 1 percent of the installed value of the plant.


Property. t~xes and administrat!vs e..xpens~s are assumed to be 2.25 percent of the installed plant cost. This is similar to t/~e figure use;. (1980). Finally, Davy..~.Vee

Ln Collieries Maragem~nt Corp.'s report

ca!~alated that the maintenance expenses for ~he plant would run a~ 5 percenu of plant's installed costs. time with inflation. Table 16 displays Eucalyptus-to-met/-~nol t_he results of t.he financial analysis for t~e facility. For tDm base case incorporating t.he All of these costs increase over

assun~tions frcm Table 15, t/~ internal rate of return is 23.3 percent on an after tax basis (discounted, cash, glow approach). after tax return is certainly attracti%~. start up is $257 million. Since the engineering cost estimate for t_he plant has a confidence band of plus or minus alternatives. in scenario 2. 35 percent, scenarios 2 and 3 address these A 23.3 percent

Total cash required ~ntil

The high cost plant, 35 percent cost-overrun, If all the ct_her assumptions

is e.~amined

listed J-n Table 15 hold,

the project still provides an after tax interal rate-of-return of 19.1 percent. If, on the other hand, the plant ul~t_imately costs 35 percent the internal rate-of-return after taxes

less than is not estimated, soars to 30.8 percent.

To explore t~.~e affect of f~_nancing options on plant profitabili~l %~ considered scenarios of i00 percent equity debt (No. 5). (No. 4) and i00 percent

Maintaining the base case ass~pt/~ons of Table 15 we find

t.~t the after tax return falls to 20.2 percent if all financL~g is by equity. Although profitability for this cption is reduzed by. 3 percent-

age points compared to the base case, t.he effects are modest because t.=~ base case already used a sigr.ificant portion of equity capital (60


percent cf plant costs plus any operating deficits).

By. contrast,


i00 percent debu case causes the after tax internal rate-of-return to jump to 36.4 percent.

Scenarios 6, 7, and 8 examine the consequences of the lower profile for methanol prices drawn frcm Table 7. Under these circmastances the

interest rate-of-return after r~xes would be 9.8 percent for the base case, 6.7 percent for the high cost plant, and 15.1 percent for the lcw cost plant. Finally, scenarios 9 to ii explore the affects of the higher

profile for methanol prices.

Here profits range frcm 21.1 perce_-.t for

the high cost plant to 33.5 percent for the low cost plant.


Table 16.--Financial analysis--Bicmass Energy Systems, Inc. 100 MGY methanol facility Assumptions--scenario
, i .,.., .. .

Interral rate of return

Base case i. B a s e case: Evergreen Energy. plant costs, Chase inflation and interest rates, ,Dderate methanol prices, and 60 percent inves~nant in plant 2. 3. 4. 5. High cost plant: plus 35 percent L:w cost plant: less 35 percent .~ull s~uity: ~vergreen Energy. plant costs

23.2% 19.1%

Evergreen Energy_ plant costs 30.8% 20.2% 36.4%

i00 percent equity, financing

Full debt: i00 percent debt financ~g

L ~ methanol prices 6. Base case: Evergreen Energy plant costs, Chase inflation and interest rates, low methanol prices, and 60 percent equity financing 7. 8. Hiqh cost plant: plus 35 per:ent Imw cost plant: less 35 percent Evergreen Energy plant costs

9.8% 6.7%

Evergreen ~ergy plant COsts 15.1%


methanol prices Base case: Evergreen Energy plant costs, Chase inflation and interest rates, high met~3nol prices, and 60 percent equity financing High COst plant: plus 35 percent ImW COSt plant: less 35 percent Evergreen Energy. plant costs

25.9% 21.1%

I0. ii.

Evergreen Energy plant costs 33.5%



Can wood-to-methanol compete, with coal-to-met2mnol? If our forecast for methanol prices in Table 7 is accurate, it


that the production of methanol technically

from Eucalyptus

in C~_ntral this

Florida is viable both optimistic

and economically.


assumption must be tempered with the kncwledge that wood-

based methanol will face a serious ccr~etitive challenge frcm coal-based methanol. Ln theory, most &~.v carbonaceous stock for methanol production. substance can b~ used as a feedin practice cost and availto coal, wood, a ~


ability limit the relevant alternative feedstocks municipal solid waste. produce methanol, competitive?

Since each of these feedstocks could be used to is which will be the most

the econcmic question

This is a crucial issue since the feedstock which produces

the lowest cost methanol, will be the feedstock of choice. A number of recent studies have attempted to address tb_is issue. The general consensus conclusion is that coal is by far the least cost feedstock ccmparisons waste. for methanol production. Table 17 is a sampling of price

for methanol produced frcm coal, wood, and municipal solid

Since municipal solid waste is not cc~petitive as a feedstock,

it will not be discussed f11rther. The conclusicn that coal-methanol is inherently less expensive than wu~d-methanol is supported by the theoretical process econcmics involved in converting feedstc~k to methanol. The total cost of producing

methanol depends upon:

(i) feedstock costs, Coal appears ~

(2) oonv~rsion efficiento w~od in each

cies, and (3) plant costs. of these areas.

be ~ i o r

Table 17.--~tbanol production cost forecasts--private producers (1980 dollars) Feedstock

, , ,,

S/gallon $0.78-$0.92 S0.98 $0.52 $0.66 $1.53

Wan 1

I il IIm l ml

,. ..

Collieries 2 wood coal coal municipal solid waste ~mm 3 Bentz 4 Badger 5 S~ces: coal coal

--Texaco Koppers-Totzek


$0.61 $0.56




~an (1982), pp. 27.

2Collieries (1980), pp. A9, AI9, A33, 2~i. ~T~n and Forester (1980), p. I0. 4Bentz (1980), p. 95. 5Badger as reported in Paul (1970), pp. 130.


>~tb~nol production can be vie~L~d as a two step process:


production of _synthesis gas from the feedstock and (2) methanol synthesis. Step ~ o is basically ~ same no matter what the feedstock is.

Thus, we are concerned ~ainly about step one when coal and wood are c c~pared as feedstocks. tages over ~ d : (i) (2) (3) coal is available at very concentrated locations--mines, ve~Z large amounts of coal are available at the .mine sites, coal contains more carbon and ,has a higher B%~3 value per pound than w~nd, and (4) it is .more efficient to convert coal to met~hanol. As a feedstock coal has the following advan-

.~hus, cc~pared to wood coal is easier and cheaper to handle, it offers a creater output of methanol per ton of feedstock input, and it costs the same or less on a BTU basis. In addition, because very 1~3rge amounts of

coal are conce.ntrated at one location, very. large plants can be desired tn exploit the econcmies of sale. Alt~hough coal has a number of inherent advantages over wood as a methanol feedstock, it also has some inh,~rent disadvantages. First,

ccmpared to wood coal will have a greater in~act on the environment. Unlike wDod coal contains significant an~unts of sulfur and very Emall ammmts of heavy metals like arsenic and mercury. However, coal based

me,hanoi ~lants mint be very large to ~xploit their econcmies of scale, ~ney will use huge ~rcunts of coal and thereby generate large quantities of effluents. Ehvironmental protection costs will be high, they appear Fur~dm.~mDre,

to be understated in the literature ~ore_ on this b~low).

very large coalnmetbmnol plants will .teeS/re large amounts of freshwater which may not be readily available.



estimates of methanol costs

frcm coal asst~ne thermal H~ver, thermal In fact,

conversion efficiencies from 50 to almost 60 percent.

efficiencies at this level have not been proven commercially.

in the two plant designs developed for BESI pursuant to this research thermal efficiencies were below 50 percent (for wood) and well b e l ~ t~e projected the_~mal efficiencies published in the literature. If t~he

thermal efficiency, levels for wood are overstated in the literature, is it not likely that the thezmml conversion efficiency, for coal is also overstated? If so, then the cost of producinq methanol frcm coal will

he higher than the current literature suggests. Third, the coal-to-n~thanol plants achieve low costs ~ cutput in part because of their very large sizes. gallon of

~nese conceptual

plants are designed to produce betw~_n 6,500 and 7,300 tons of m~thanol per day. Thus, they are at least 3 times larger than the largest plant operating t~day. Since methanol plants of this scale have never been

built, engineering scale up problems are inevitable and have been recognized (Paul, 1978, pp. 163). However, such problzms do not appear to be reflected in the capital cost estimates for these p/ants. ~ addition, massive coal-to-methanol plants pose large financial For this reason alone,

risks because of their she~_r size and cost.

financing charges [including profit) may have to be .higher than normal. Finally, estimates of the cost for various plant cc~ponents (such

as material handling, oxygen, methanol synthesis, etc.) appear to be significantly under estimated in the literature. This imparts a signif-

icant dcwnward bias to the projected cost of producing met~hanol frcm coal. To evaluate the reasonableness of the cost estimates for a

ccal-to-n~thm~l plant we can c.cmgare these costs to ~ e cost estimates


BESI received for a wood-to-n~thanol


Only those items which In

exist in both the coal-fed and wood-fed plants can be compared. addition, adjustments must be made to account for inflation This is done in Tabge 18.

and for

different volumes of output.

For example, the wocd-tonmethanol plant requires an oxygen plant to produce 1,000 tons-per-day of oxygen. It will cost $45 million or

S~5,000 per daily-ton of output.

The two coal pla~ts require rm/ch

greater amounts of oxygen (6,000 and 7,300 tons-per day r~spectively), but even after adjusting for inflation they are estimated to cost

$29,000 and $23,840 per daily ton of output.

While there are likely to

be some econcmies of Scale at larger output levels, t~he estimated costs for the oxygen plants at the coal-to-methanol facilities seem to be nl/ch too ic~. As Table 18 demc~strates, most e%~r~' ~ e n t in the esti-

mated costs for the coal-t~-methanol estimated. Re~g

plant to be too trader-

each of the four concerns raised above--emvironmental, scale, and capital cost estinates--it appears

conversion efficiency,

t.hat whatever cost advantage a coal-to-methanol p "lent may ultin~tely have over a wood-to ~-methanol plant it will be nuch smaller than reported in the literatnre. Thus, despite the li~terature, there is no reason to plant located in Central Florida

believe that a Eucalyptus-to-methanol

can not compete against coal-to-methanol plants.


Table 18.---Curparative plant costs (in 1982 dollars per daily ton of output) Evergreen estimate for BEST 's woodto-methanol I plant 45,000 26,700 25,700 4,000 65,500 27,900 43,600 5,000
_ s ,

Plant component Oxygen plant Acidgas r ~ v a l ~thanol synthesis ~thanol storage Wood gasification Plant utilities Feed prsparation Other
, ,

Collieries est/mate for lignite-to 9 methanol" 29,000 2,060 14,470 504 14,430 29,360 5,880 51,126
, ,,

Collieries estimate for coal-to 3 methanol 23,840 2,230 13,870 470 21,7G0 8,300 4,635 21,135

Total Sources:


,,,, , ,


iEvergreen Energy Systems (1982), pp. 18. 2Collieries Manag~nent Corp. (1980}, pp. A-8. 3Ibi___dd, pp. A-19.



4.0 Environmental concerns

,. ,.

Any project of the scale described in this report raises environmental concerns. Scme of these concerns related to general misgivings

about any type of development activity while other concerns are more specifically related to the production of methanol from Eucalyptus in central Florida. this discussion To facilitate the analysis of environmental matters is divided into three .Darts: {i) plantation, {2) The

methanol plant, and znvlronmen~al

' j.

(3) use of methanol as an automotive fuel.

impacts of the tissue cultur~ lab is essentially zero

except in so far as it allows us to rapidly develop the energy plantar/on (Working Document No. 5, 1982, pp. 9).


Eucalvgtus energy_ plantation Working Document No. 5, Florida's Eucalyptus ~er~y. Farm and

Methanol Refiner~. - Environmental l ~ c t

Assessment, and Wor~in~ Docu-

ment No. 6, The Florida Eucalyptus ~erg7. Farm Interface with Natural EcoSystems address the environmental effects of the Eucalyptus energy plantation. this work. The discussion below summrizes the research results of

~he Eucalyptus energy plantation is an intensively planted

E~c~lyptus forest of 70,000 acres which is managed to maximize bicmass yield. As such, the environmental impact of the plantation is similar However, the estab-

in some respects to a densely planted pine forest.

lishnent of a forest whet ~ none existed tends to improve the overall . environment of the area. Of course there are tradeoffs: and the initial are disruptive, but ~be ~erall No. 5,

plant/ng and subsequent ~rvest/ng ~ t a l

1982, pp. i).

effects are clearly positive

(Working ~ t


An intensive ~

year analysis of a ntm~er of Eucalyptus

in Florida demonstrated that no significant, detrimental, environmental, consequences are e.xpec~d from the establishment of a 70,000 acre

Eucalyptus energy plantation.

Proper silvicultural management tech-

niques are vital to insure cost-effective bicmass production, and this insures a ~ use of high cost fertilizers, herbicides, or


Eucalypts have no dunestic insect pests, require little or Thus, no adverse

no fertilizer, and may need herbicides only rarely.

effects on water, soils, air, or animals are expected (Working Docurent No. 5, 1982, pp. 12-13). Since we plan to use an intensive silviculture planting with a short seven year rotation, soil conditicns and possible nutrient losses n~st be evaluated. scores. A Eucalyptus energy plantation does well on these

First, a major ccncern in soil conservation is erosion. The Only at the initial

Eucalyptus plantation, will minimize this problem. planting will there be potential for erosion. their ground cover will minimize erosion.

Thereafter the trees and Since the trees coppice

(sprout back) frcm their sttmps, the soil is protect~ even at ha~rest time. output. Second, Eucalyptus builds topsoil because of its high detrital In addition, since Eucalyptus allow substantial light to reach

the forest floor, the litter undergoes oxidation (Working Docurent No. 5, 1982, pp. 13-16). Third, nutrient loss is not generally a problem with forest crops. Hc~ever, intensive silviculture will increase the nutrient absorption. Pesearch indicates that phosphata is the primary nunrient taken up by. Eucalyptus. Since we plan to utilize reclaimed pho~@hate mine lands as


the primary, site for t.hls project, high phosphate requiremenus will not pose a problem (Working Document No. 5, 1982, pp. 16-20). A final environmental concern about Eucalyptus e/.ergy plantation is ~ selection of Eucalyptus itself. It is argued that: (I) Eucalyptus

is an ~ o t i c epidemic,"

species which may rapidly spread producing a "Eucalyptus

(2) a E~calyptus energy plantation will be devoid of wild-

life, and (3) Eucalvptnls leaves will poison tb.e soil. First, the fear of "green cancer" is a legitimate one in Florida which has experienced nauxtious invasions of exotics like Hydril!a, 5~llaluca, Brazilian

Pepper, and Austialian Pine.

However, Eucalyptus has been growing in Indeed, few

Florida since the 1870s, and it has never proliferated.

"wildings" could be located after an ~xtensive search, and those that w~re found were located close to their source. Finally, BESI's species The

of choice, Camaldulensis does no~ produce viable seed in Florida.

seed pods are attacked by a ru~turally occurring fungus. 'Fnrcugh BESI's plan for clonal propagation, trait is insured. ~ perpetuation of this useful natural

Thus, the Eucalyptus energy plantation will not be a

sotlrce of an epidemic of Eucalyptus (Working Document No. 6, 1982, pp.


Second, existing stands of Eucalyptus in Florida and throughout t/m world exhibit high natural sys#~ms values. A wide array of an/real life

can and does cc~ist with Eucalyptus (Working Document No. 6, 1982, pp. 1 and Appendices I and II). Finally, ~ %~ken notion !eaws. cumes claim that Eucalyptus poisons the soil. frcm the allelcpathic properties of This misEucalyptus

Eucalypts do r~gress the ~

of cu~eting vegetation by A constant

chemical means.

~his process is effective but short lived.


supply o~ new leaf mata~isl is needed to make allelopathic connrol effective. Extensive fiel~ studies in Florida demonstrate that this is No. 6, 1982, pp. 6-9).

not a concern (~orking ~ t

One last concern about t/qeene~gy plantation relates to harvesting. As described above BESI plans to use mechanized procedures for harvesting (fel!er-bunchers for stem wood and chipp~_rs for ~ crowns). Just

as in any forestry operation, there will be disruption, but it will only occur for short periods. transportation facilities Of greater concern will be the inloact on (~oads). These are unavoidable and will be

dealt with as necessary (Wo~ing Docum~_nt No. 5, 1982, pp. 40-42).


e nol pr qctian f
The methanol productitm facility consists of a large wood yard,

heavy industrial processing ~itm~_nt to make methanol from Eucalyptus, and storage of fini.9~d methanol busy. A ~Dcd yard is a wood yard--noisy and

The wood yard for the mathanol plant will be quite similar to No peculiar impacts are anticipated for BESI's

that of a paper mill. wood yard.

As for t_he methanol plagt, it is designed for and required to meet all applicable federal, st~t~, and local standards. In addition, wood

is inherently an environman~lly clean feedstock having a/most no sulfur or other toxic trace elame~s. its fossil fuel alternative%. Furthermore, envircnme~f~l quality and eccmcmical operation of the methanol production facility go hand in hand. plant, the lower will its ~ffluents be pp.. 46). The more efficient the Wood Icoks particularly good compared to

(Working Doc/re_nt No. 5, 1982,


The plant will produce three effluent streams. sulfide and carbon dioxide gases will be generated.

First, hydrogen Hydrog~, sulfide

gas in very. small quantities will be treated by scrubbing to nmet all applicable standards. also he produced. Substantial quantities of carbon dioxide will

Sc~e of this will be absorbed in the green house Second,

facility, but the remainder will be vented to the atmosphere. the plant will also produce ash. plantation as a soil amendment.

This will be redistributed to t.~ Finally, a substantial flow of waste

water will be treated to meet all applicable standards.


Use of methanol as a fuel


It is use~=ul to separate the discussion of utilization issues into two parts: neat methanol and blends of methanol and ga.~line. Since

these two app. licat/ons pose ~ t cussed individually.

different problems, each is dis-

The use of neat methanol as an auto fuel poses three kinds of utilization problems: mance, and (3) safety. (1) material cc[~at~bility, ~thanol (2) vehicle perfor-

is a strong solvent, and it acts on

oummonly used automotive materials such as plastics, polyester lain/tinted fiberglass, epoxies, teflon and cork. In addition, methanol corrodes

zinc, steel, aluninum, magnesium, low-t_tn solders and terr.e metal (used in the linings of fuel tanks). Hawever, these problems can be readily

avoided by switching materials both in the vehicles themselves and Ln the methanol delivery system. However, the cost of changing the

materials at risk would be minor. The %~en the second utilization concern relates to vehicle perfonmmnce. temperature is below 50 ", methanol will not vaporize


sufficiently to allow the engine to start. Thu~, either ~additives nust be used or a cold-star~ device provided, in addition, the carburetor Three other modi-

must be adjusted to optimize the air/fuel mixture. fications will ~mhance


(i) an increased compression ratio

enhances the r.hermal efficiency of the engine boosting performance and mileage, [2) a larger fuel tank will ccnioensate for methanol's low

~lumetric heat content, and (3) ~Tcdifications to the intake and exhaust .Tanifolds to provide for preheating the fuel which improves fuel/air distribution. The third concern is safety. Safety has ~ aspects to it--

environmental safety and consumer safe~.~. The environmental concerns pertain to exhaust emissions. better tb~nr,gasoline. Here methanol fuel performs as well or

Using current engine ccnfigures with the neces-

sary carburetor adjustments, exhaust emissions from methanol are similar to those from gasoline for CO and unburned fuel. Huwever, NOX emissions are only half of t~hose for gasoline. Aldehyde emissions are ~uch higher

for methanol than for gasoline, but these are currently unregulated. ~hen engines are modified to optimize their use of methanol, Boosting the comintake-fuel reduces

significant reductions in emissions are reported. pression ratio of the engine and heating the

aldehyde emissions to the level of gasoline while also further reducing emissions of CO and unburned fuel. Consumer safety relates to the toxicity and fire hazard posed by methanol. Although methanol is toxic, it is significantly less toxic The fire hazard posed by methanol is different in nature Although methanol b~s a higher

than gasoline.

but the sams degree as for gasoline.

flash point temperature than gasoline, thus reducing the risk frcm spill


or leak induced fires, mst~hanol presenus a greater risk of ~plosicn because of its wider flamability limits. TSe USe o~ methanol as an octane-~nhancing blem.d/ng agent with gasoline poses a scmewhat different set of utilization concerns i~.cluding." martial separation. cc~tibility, vehicle perfoLTance, safety., and phase

~hen used as a bler~dr.g agent at concentrations of less

than i0 percent, methanol poses few problems o~ material cc~pat/bility. In ~er~s of vehicle performance, few of the modifications required for neat methanol use are needed for blends o. !0 percent or less. ~ However, cold start-up can still be a problem. methanol blends creates a n~w prob!em--,mpor In addition, the use of lock. Since methanol

raises ~21e vapc~ pressure- of gasoline; fuel demands, especially on hot days, ca~ sot be meet readily. .-his can be corrected by more careful

blending ~Lnd by adjusting the carburetor setting for tb~ air-to-fuel ratio. The q~estion of safety has already been addressed above. Wiuh

blends t/~ same arguments apply except tb~t the positive effects of methanol are reduced by the lower level of use in a blend as cc~pared to a neat fuel. T~a f.inal issue is phase separation. obstacle ~o using methanol in blends. This is the most serious

Although met~2~%ol is slightly If small quan-

miscable in gasoline, it is highly miscable in water.

tities of w~ter come in contact with the blend (0.i to 0.5 percent), the water is absorbed by the methanol and in effect the water extracts methanol f~-~n t~he blend. is c o n s t ~ l y ~lis is called phase separation. Since water

present throughout the fuel distribution syst~-n, this


poses a real prcblem.

water frcm ~ air.

In addition, m~thanol is hygoscopic and absorbs

If phase separation does occur, it leads to poor vehicle performance. Corrosion and other materials prublems are prcnDted. ~ditives Increasing

can help ameliorate this problem, but they are expensive.

nhe arcmatic content of the gasoline is helpful because methanol is more soluable in t.hose blends. avoid water. The final hurdle which methanol fuel must jtmp. is ~ist/ng governmental regulations. ~thanol fuels will have to meet requirements The best way to avoid phase separation is to

concerninq mDvememt, distribution and em~-use in a timely cost effective manner. ~e National Transportation Policy Study Commission conducted

two detailed analyses of the regulatory concerns related to ~/~e supply, transportation, safety, and environmental i~gacts of methanol 5;els. In reviewing these studies Be.ritz, et al. (1980, pp. 223-226) (i)

identified only two areas of potential concern for methanol den~nd: es%issions standards and (2) f%lel economy standards.

As to the first,

methanol will result in lower emissions than gasoline, so there are no apparent problems. methanol. Of However, the EPA must still approve all blends of is the increase in evaporative

par'.icular concern

emissions which can occur in methanol blends. blends can meet these concerns. The second issue relates to fuel economy. standards are based on gasoline. applicable tc me~mnol, Hc%~ver, so ~

Waivsrs and /n~r~4ed

Federal fuel econc,~

These standards are not strictly new rule making ~ u l d be needed.

procedural stress are already in plac~ and no particular

prcblem is likely to develop.


Working Document No. 5 (1982) pp. 68-83 ~xamines ~,ese issues in ureater depth. Briefly, hc~ever, it is fair to say that the Eucalyptus-

to-methanol fuel cycle is a relatively benign pathway for production o_ ~ liquid automotive fuel conlm%red to fossil fuels. wood-to-methanol route is a renewable e n ~ y path. In addition, the


ODnclusions The outlook for gasoline prices through 2000 J2 for priceo, rising

at almost 10 percent-per-year. along is current trer~. ~tion d ~ n

Domestic conse~,~tion will continue

These twin forces will push gasoline consu~p-

from 7.7 million barrels per day in 1980 to 4.6 million These trends of rising prices and falling 2020 (U.S. Department of

barrels per day by 2000. demands are e . ~ e d

to continue through

Energy, 1982). Unlike other energy using sectors of the economy., the transportation sector must continue to use I/quid fuels. Thus, even with conser-

vation, over 4 million barrels per day of gasoline or its equivalent ~rill be ~-~%stm~d through 2020. extensive d~m~nds competitlw. O/t research indicates that if methanol is priced at or below 70 percent of the pric~ of gasoline it can penetrate the market. ~ create an These trends of rising prices and in which methanol can be


rive pressures are likely to keep met~m/~ol prices around one-half those for gasoline. At these price levels ~ ~xpect significant use of

methanol in motor vehicles. fuel market although

Through 2000 i~ will be primarily the fleet blending will occur also. As

scms gasoline


methanol supplies increase, wider distribu~.ion of neat methanol will occtlr. Can methanol produced f r ~ wood compete with methanol produced from coal? The existing literature suggests that wood can not ccmpet~ with Coal is a more cc~pact form of energy, it (mines), ar~ it is priced

coal as a methanol feedstock.

is concentrated in more specific locations

very ccr~pet'iti-~ely. Conceptual coal-to-met.b~nol plants are estimated to p.~oduce methanol at around 50 to 60 cents per gallon. estimates appear to be ~xtremely optimistic. es ~timated and process risks ignored. F~wever, t~hese

Capital costs are under-

It is mDst unlikely the methanol Ymre realistically, methanol

from a coal plant will be so inexpensive.

from wood can compete if the wQod base plant is well designed and well located. To produce methanol steps: (i) the tissue culturing and nursery gruw~h of 7.5 million from Eucalyptus requires three conceptual

D/calyptus seedlings per year to support the planting program; {2) a Eucalyptus energy plantation on 70,000 acres to provide feedstock to the methanol refinery; and (3) a 1,000 t~n-per-day Eucalyptus-to-met.hanoi production

facility. This integrated approach to methanol production from a renewable

resource base reduces overall risk and insures that the optimal mLxture of trees, land, harvesting, seedlings, and methanol product/on will be developed.


Total cash cost for ~ e

project is S350 million distributed over 7 No further cash is

,years until the metbmnol plant cares on stream. needed xt t.hat point. (i) (2)

Cash e~_nditures can be broken out as ~oilows: $ 500,000 92,500,000 257,000,000 $250,000,000 Cn an after tax

tissue culture lab and nursery Eucalyptus energy plantation

(3) methanol production facility total

~he project is projected to be qui~e profitable.

basis the interc~l rate-of-return figures (on a discounted, cash: flcw basis) are as fo!!cws: (I) (2) tissue culture lab and nursery. Eucalyptus energy plantation 25% 15% 23%

(3) methanol production facility

~orking Documant No. i T~ Floridn Eucalvp.tus Energy Farm - Silvicultural Yethods and Considerations Peferences


Abelson, PhiLip H. 1980. Energy from biomass. 20 June 1980. Vol, 208, No. AAbO.

Science Magazine. Science.

Energy and chemicals from biomass.

21~(A508). August 7.

1982. Energy and chemicals from trees. 215(4538). Hatch 12.


.~erican Chemical Socie=y. [981. Biomass as a nonfoss[l fuel source. ACS S}.'mposium Series !AA. Washing=on, D.C. Donald L. Klass (Ed.) 564 pp.

As hton, D . H . !962. Some aspects of root compa=itlon in E_. re,hans. c. Proc. 3rd Gen. Conf. I.F.A., Melbourne, Australia. Baker, .;.B. and B.G. Blackman. 1977. Biomass and nutrient accumulation In a cottonwood plantation--the first growing season. Soil Sci. Soa. Am. J AI(3):632-636. Barney, G.O. 1980. The global 2000 report to the presiden=. Vol. II: The technical report. Council on Env. Quali=y. U.S. Gov. PrintinB Office. 766 pp. Barnett, J. p.1981. (ed.). First biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Atlanta Conference Proceedings, S o u = h e m For. Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-JA. Berger, Beverly J. 1981. Biomass energy sys=ems program wood energy activities. ~n: Industrial Wood Energy Forum 81. March. Proceedings N~? P-81-31. FPRS. Madison, ~;is. Bevege, D.X. 1976. A green revolution in the high yield fores=: silviculture or new technology. Aust. For. 39:A0-50. Blakely, W.F. 1955. A key to =he eucalypts. Timber Bur., Australia. Boden, R.W. 1964. Hybridization in eucalytpus.
S e c o n d Ed. 359 p p .


For. and:

Indian For. 90(9):581-586.

Boggan, J.A. 1977. How Mead Papers learned to use whole-=tee chips for bleached pulp. Pulp and Paper Magazine, December. Bradley, J.T. 1975. Freeze probabilities in Florida. Univ. of Florida. Gainesville, Tech. Bul. 777. Agr. Exp. Sta. IFAS.


Brunck, F. 1975. Principal problem~ connected with animal or vegetable pests in natural fores= stands and man-made forests of French ~peaking tropical counties and North Africa. Second FAO World Technical Consultation on Forest Diseases and Insects. ~ew Delhi. April 7-12. Brunet, S.C. 1917. Una enfenmedad gangrenosa de los eucal!ptos. Bole~ine No. 37. Es~acion Experimental A~ronomica, Santiago de las Vega, Cuba. 38 pp. Budlansk?, Stephen. 1980. Chemical feedstocks from biomass. Science and TechnologT. Vol. IL(6). June. Environmen~ai

Bun~ay, R.R. and R.F. Ward. 1977. Fuels and chemicals from crops. pp. 105-120. -r--- L.A. Anderson and D.A. Till~an, Fuels ~rom In: Waste. Academlc Press, New York. Bucson, K.D. and G.M. Pr!ne. 1968. Weekly rainfall frequencies in Florida. Agr. Exp. S~a. Unv. of Florida. Gainesville. Cir. S-187. Al pp. 5ut~5, Paul M. and Druid N. Preston. 1979. ~ o l e =tee chlpping...a fores~r7 management ~ooi. Georgia Forest Research Paper. :Io. ~. June. Georgia Forestry Co-a-mission. Cameron, B.A. and L.F. Riley. !981. Site preparation for trailed planting machines: l'hz G~S V-Blade. In: Forest ~egeneration. Proceedings of the American Society of Agrlcultural Engineers Symposium on Engineering Systems for Forest Regeneratlon. March. Cameron, J.N. 1980. Plantations and the Brazilian economy. for Austailian Forest Grower. 7 pp. Carter, W.G. 197A. for pulping. Papers prepared

GrowinE and harvesting eucalypts on short-rotations Ausc. For. 35(3):21a-225.

Chippendale, G.M. 1973. Eucalyptus of the western Australian Goldfields (and adjacent wheatbelt). Conde, L.F. and D.L. Rockwood. 1979. Energy plantation potential in Florida. Unv. of Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. IFAS. Gainesville, TL. p. 2-ii. ProceedinEs: Alternative Energy Sources for Florida. Couto, H.T.Z. do., R.A. Me!lo, J.W. Simoes and R. Vencov~<y. managemen~ of E_. sali~na, iPEF 7, 115-25. u. 1973. Coppice

Cowan, William F. Planting eucalyptus in South Florida. Eucalyptus Handbook for Southern United States. LTkas B~os. Palmdale, FL. In Manuscript.


Crane, Wilfred J.B. 1972. Fire in =he Australian Environment. Fire in =he Environment Symposium Proceedings. Denver, CO. May. Cremer, K.W. 1969. Growth of eucalypts in experimental plantaclons near Canberra. Aus=. For. 36:214-25. Cremer, K.W., R.N. Cromer and R.G. Florence. 1978. Stand establlshmen=. I_~n: Eucaly~=s for Wood Production. Hillis and Brown (eds.) pp. 81-135.

Cromer, R.N. 197&. The potential for eucalyptus plantations in Victoria. Euealyp= Seminar Gippsland, Victoria Journal of Science and Austratian Tech. Vo. 12(6) May 1975. Cromer, R.N. 1975. The potential for Eucalyptus plantations in Victoria. Jot. of Sci. and Aus=. Tech. 12(5). May. Cromer, R.N., M. Raupach, A.R.P. Clarke and Cameron. 1975. The potential for intensive production and utilization of eucalyp~s in Australia. 29th APP~TA Conf. March. Launces~on. Cromer, R.N., E. Williams and D. Tompkins. 1980. Biomass and nutrlen~ uptake in ~ertilized E. ~lobulus. IUFRO S)~poslum and workshop on Genetic Improvement-and Pr0duc=ivlty of Fast Growing Trees. Sao Pedro, Sao Paulo, Brazil. August. Dawson, D.H. 1976. History and organize=ion of the maximum wood yield program, pp. I-4. In: Intensive Plan~acion Culture; Five Years Research, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-21, Northcentral For. Exp. Sta., S~. Paul, MN. Dawson, David H., Zavi=kovski, J. and J.G. I s e b r a n d s . 1980. Managing forests for maximum bomass production. AIChE Symposium Series 75(195). DeBell, D.S. 1970. 68:335-337. Phytotoxins: new problems in forestry? Jorn. For.

l~eBell, D.S. 1972. Potential produc=ivlty of dense young thickets of red alder. For. Ras. Note No. 2. Crown Zel!erback Corp. Central Research, Cameo, Wash. DeBell, D.S. and 3.C. ~arms. 1976. Identification of cos= factors associated 9th intensive culture of forest crops. Iowa S~ate Jorn. of Res. " 50(3):295-300. DeBell, D.S., R.F. S~rand, and D.L. Reukema. 1978. Shorn-rotation production of red alder: some options for future forest management. pp. 231-244. In: Utillza=io~ and ~nagement of Alder. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep, PNW-70. Pac. NW For. Rge. Exp. Sta. Portland, OR.


DaD[oral, R. and C.H. Muller. 1970. The alleopathic effects o EucalzpTus camaldulensis. Amer. Midland Naturalist 83:254-282. Donald, C.M. 1968. The breeding of crop deo=ypes. Euphytica. Vol. 17. USDA For.

Dutrow, G.F. 1971. Economic Implications of silage sycamore. Serv. Res. Pap. 50-66, South. For. Exp. S~a.

Dvorak, W.S., E.C. Franklin and G. Meskimen. 1981. Breeding strategy for E. robusta in Sou=horn Florida. Presented at 16th Southern Forest Tree Improvmen~ Conference, Blacksburg, VA. Ek, A.R. and D.D. Dawson. 1977. Yields of intensively grown Populus: actual and projected, pp~ 5-9. I_.nn: Intensive Plantations Culture; Five Years Research. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rap. NC-21. Northcentral For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul, M~. Eidridge, K.G. 1978. Genetic improvement of eucalypts. of Forest Research. Silvae Gone=ice 27, 5(1978). 2600. Australia. CSIRO Division Canberra, A.C.T.

EnvironmenTal Protection Agency. 1978. Areawlde Impact Assessment of she'" Central Florida Phosphate industry. Vol. IV and X. Fege, A.S., R.E. Inman, and D.J. Salo. Jorn. For. 77(6):356-361. 1979. Energy farms for the future.

Filho, V.B.andA.J.A.Zaga~to. 1980. Methanol from Brazil. American Chemical Soqlety National Meeting, March 23-38. Houston, Texas. Florence, R.G. and K.R. Shepherd. 1975. The role of eucalypt forests in wood production.. Aust. For. 38:100-16. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. for planting, irst Ed. (FAO:Rome). 1955. Eucalypts

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1975. Pulping and papermaking properties of fast-growlng plantation wood species. Rome. December. FO:MISC/75/31. 237 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1976. Harvesting man-made forests in developing countries. Rome. p. 119. Franklin, E.C. 1977. Yield and properties of pulp from eucalypt wood grown in Florida. TAPPI. 60(6). June. Franklin, E.C. 1978. Exotics for hardwood timber production in the SouCheastern United States. Reprinted rom proceedings 2rid Symposium. Southeastern Hardwoods. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Se~1. Southeast. Area S&PF, Atlanta, GA.


Franklin, E.C. 1979. Prosper=us: Development of tropical ~ores= resources in southern Florida. Prepared for International Forest and Seed Company, Birmingham, AL. Franklin, E.C. and G.F. Meskimen. 1973, Genetic improvement of Eucalyptus robusta am, in Southern Florida. Proc. ZUFRO Working Parries on Trop. Prov. and Prdgeny Res. and In~. Coop.~ Commwl. For. Ints. Oxford:421-~2A. Franklin, E.C. and G.F, Meskimen. 1975. Progeny resting in a eucalyptus breeding program. Proc. IUFRO Workln E Par~ies of Progeny Testing. Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. Asheville, 2-4. Fujii, David M. 1976. The nuuanu eucalyptus plan~ing: growth, survival, s~and development after 6& years. Pac. SW For. and Rge. Exp. Sta. USDA For. Serv. Res. No~e PSW-318. Geary, T.F. 1975. Winter pkan~ing potential of four eucalyp~ species in South Florida. Tree Planters No~es 28(3 & ~):14-17. Geary, T.F. and George Meskimen. Seed technology. Southeastern For. Exp. S=a. Lehigh Acres, FL, In: Eucalyptus Handbook for Southern United States. In Manuscript. Georgia Forestry Commission. Goes, E. 1980. Wood Energy in Georgia. Lisbon. October.

1967. Culture do Eucalipto.

Greaves, T., G.J. Armstrong, R.S. McInnes and J.E. Dowse. 1967. Timber losses caused by ~ermites, decay, and fire in two coastal forests in New South Wales. CSIRO (Aust.) Div. Entomol. Tech. Pap. No. 7, pp. 4-18. Green Heritage Committee of the Forestry Council. 1978. of the year. P.O. Box 4430. Pretoria 0001. Eucalyptus: tree

Groulez, J. 1970, An outline of the data presented at the Lisbon Symposium on the Growing and Industrial Use of Eucalypts. Transl. from Bois For. Trop. No. 136 by R.V. Champagne, For. Timber Bur. Aust. Hall, N., R.D. Johnston, and G.M. Chippendale. Australia. 1975. Forest trees of

Hall, N., R.D. Johnston, and R. Marryatt. 1963. The natural occurrence of the eucalyp~s. For. and Timber Bur. Aust. Leafl. 65 (2nd Ed.) 122 p. Harms, William R. and O. Gordon Langdon. 1976. Deve16pment of loblolly pine in dense stands. For. Sci. 22(3):331-337. Hartley, A. 1977. The establishment o Eucalyptus tereticorn~s on railings from the Bou~anville Copper Mine, Papua New Guinea. Commonw. For. Res. 56(3):239-245,


Har=ney, V.J. 1980. Vegetative propaEa=ion of the eucalypts. For. Res. 10:191-211.


Hassan, A.E. 1977. Effect of mechanization on forest soils and regenere~ion. Coastal Plain OrEanlc Soil. Am. Soc. AEric. En~. Pap. 77-157!, 24 pp. Heather, W.A. and D.M. Grlffen. 1978. The potential for epidemic disease. In: Hillis, W.E. and A.G. Brown (ed.) Eucalyp~s for Wood Production. pp. IA3-154. Heilman, P.E., D.V. Peabody, Jr., D.S. DeBell, and R.F. Strand. 1972. A ~es~ of close-spaced, short-rotation culture of black cottonwood. Can. Jour. of For. Res. 2(4):456-459. Hillls, W.E. and A.G. Brown. Editors. 1978. Eucalypts for wood production. 434 p. Conm~onwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Melbourne, Victoria. Griffin P=ess Ltd. Adelaide~ S. Australia. Hodges, C.S,, H.S. Reis, F.A. Ferreira and J.D.M. Henfling. 1975. 0 ca~cTo do eucallpto causado pot Diapor=he cubensis. Fi~opathol. Brasileira 1:129-170. Hodges, C.S., T.F. Gear'y, and E.C. Cordell. 1979. The occurrence of Diaporthe cubensis on Eucalyptus in Florida, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Plant Dis. Reptr. 63:216-220. Horvath, R. J. 1968. Addis Ababa's eucalyptus foresu. Studies. 6:13-19. Journ. of E=hioplan

Howland, P. 1969. Effects of singling coppice in E_.~. sali~na wood fuel crops at Mugu~a , Kenya. Eas~ Afric. Agrlc. For. J. 35,66-7.. Howlett, K. and A. Gamache. 1977. Silvicultural blomass farms. V,l. IX The Biomass Potential of Short Rotation Fa~-ms. Energy Res. and Dev. Administration. Div. Solar Energy. ~[TR-7347 (Vol. If) 119 pp. Inman, R.E. 1977. Silvicultural biomass farms. Vol. I. Su=zmary. Energy Res. and Dev. Administration. Div. of Soalr Energy. ~v~TR-3747 (Vol.

z) 62 pp.
Jackson, J.K. and G.O.A. Oio. 1973. Provenance trials of Eucalyptus camal___.__dulensls in the Savanna region of Nigeria. Fed. Dept. For. Res., Nigeria, Savanna For. Res. Sta.~ Res. Pap. No. l&.


Johnson, Wa::ren O. 1970. Minimum temperatures in the agriculr.ur--I areas of p~ninsular Florida. Summary of 30 Winter Seasons--1937-67. IFAS.: Publ. No. 9. Sept. Unv. of FL, Galnesville. Johnson, d.C. 1980. Energy from blomass: McLean, VA: The METRE Corp. ~he implications of gasohol.

Johnson, R. ChanninB, Roduey K. Lay, Lawrence C. Newman. 1980. Energy ~rom biomass: a technology assessment of terrestrial biomass systems. The Mitre Corp. McLean, VA. MTR-80W259. December. Johns=on, R.D. and R. Marryat=. 1965. Taxonomy and nomenclature of eucalypts. For. and Timber Bur. Aust. Leafl. 92, 26 p. J.P.R. Associates, Inc. 1981. ~ole-tree chippers' handbook. May. Publ. by Evergreen Energy Corp. 200 F ~ h Ave. Waltham, ~ 0215A. Karsohon, R. and D. Herb. 1967.. The water balance of a plantation of Eucaiz~us eamaldulensis Dehn. Reprint from Contributions on Eucalyptus in Israel, Ill. National and University Inst. of Agr. Rehovat. Kaul, O.N. and J.D.S. Negi. 1979. Competitive transpiration rates of six eucalyptus species. For. Res. Inst. Dehra Dun. July. Kennedy, H.E. 1975. Influence of cutting cycle and spacing on coppice sycamore yields. So. For. Exp. $=a. des. Note S0-193. Kerrulsh, C.H. 1977. Developments in harvesting technology relevant =o short rotation crops. APPITA 31:61-8. Kerrulsh, C.M. 1978. Harvesting. ~n.n: Eucalypts for Wood Production. Hillis and Brown (ed.) pp 229-255. King, James P. and Stanley L. KruEman. 1980. Tests of 36 eucalyptus species in Northern California. Pac. S.W. For. and Rge. Exp. Sta. Berkeley, CA. March.

King, Tony and Sharon Haines. 1979. Soll compaction absent in plantation thinning. South. For. Exp. Sta. Kes. Note S0-251. Klass, Donald L. (editor) 1981. Biomass as a nonfossil fuel source. ACS Symposium Series l&4. A~.erican Chemical Society. Washington, D.C. Kohan, S.M. and P.M. Barkhordar. 1979. Thermochemical conversion of bioass to fuels and chemicals. Mission Analysis for the Federal Fuels from Biomass Program. Vol. IV. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Internaclonal. Krohn, Timothy J. 1981. Fertilization of Eucalyptus terecicornis in Southern Guam. Tree Planters Notes.


KruEman, Stanley L. 1974. Eucalyptus L'Herit. In: Plants in ~he U.S. USDA Agr. Hdbk. No. 450.

Seeds of Woody

Kuhlman, George E. and Edward L. Barnard. Diseases of eucalypts. Inn: Eucalyptus Handbook for Southern United Sta~es. Chapter XI. In Manuscript. Laird, Cubie R. 1972. Fertilization o~ slash pines on poorly-dralned soils in northwest Florida. Cir. 378. Fla. Coop. Ex=. Serv. !FAS. Unv. of Florida. Galnesville. Landsberg. R., H. Lippmann, K. Paffen, and C. Troll. of climatology. Springer=Verlag. New York. !965. World maps

La..Ter, J.N. and R.B. Fridley. 1979. Some aspects of machine planting ~or fo=es~ regeneration. ASAE Pap. No. 79-1614, 22 pp. LeBa~ron, Russell K. 1962. Eucalypts in Hawaii: a survey of practices and research programs. Pac. S.W. For. and Rge. Exp. Sty. Misc. Pap. No. 64. Berkeley, CA. U.S. Dept. of As. Ledig, F. Thomas. 1981. Silvicultural systems f o r the energy efficient production of fuel biomass. In: Biomass as a Nonfossil Fuel. ACS Symposium Series 14A. American Chemical Society. Washington, D.C. pp. 4A7-461.
Leppik, E.E. 1970.

Annu. Ray. Phyeopathol.

Geue c e n = r e s o f p l a n n s as s o u r c e s h~ d i s e a s e 8, 323-44.


Loomis, R.C. and W.H. Padge==. ~973. Air po!lutio~' and crees in the East. USDA Forest Service. Nor=heasuer~ and southeastern area, Slate and prlva=e forestry. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp. Luckoff, H.A. 1955. The estahlishme::~ and regeneration of Eucalyptus ~ plantations in the coastal belt of Zululand. J. S. Aft. For. Assoc.

Lugo, Ariel E. 1970. The ecological role of fercili:ers in relation to forest productivity and dollar subsidy by man. pp. 21-33. Proceedings of the Florida Section, Society o American Foresters, Gainesville, FL. Malajczuk, N., A.J. McComb, and J.F. Lonergan. 1975. Phosphorus uptake and growth of mycorrhizae and infected seedligs of Eucalyptus callophylla. Aus=. J. got. 23, 231-8. Mariani, E.W., W.A. Wood, P.C. Kouchouk, M.B. Minion and Marelco, Inc. 1978. The eucalyptus energy farnr--feaslbility study and demonstratiou-Phase I: Site and species selection. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C, NCP/T2557-OI, UC-61.


Martin, John P. in press. PlanCing eucalyptus in the south Aclanclc Coastal plain/'Nor~h ?lorida, and the gulf coastal plain. Westvaco Corporation. Sunmervitle, S.C. McAlpine, R.G., C.L. Brown, A.M. Rerrick and H.E. Rua=k. sycamore. Forest Farmer 25!6-7. 1966. Silage

McAlpine, R.G. and C.L. Brown. 1967. Outlook for fiber from short-term coppice to=anions. Tech. Pap. Amer. Pulpwood Assoc. (April) (!5-16, 18). McAr=hur, A.G. 1957. Fire behavi0ur in eucalypt ~orests. Aust. Leafl. No. 80. .McAr=hur, A.G. 3:83-90. 1968. Fire resistance of eucalypts. For. Timb. Bur.

Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust.

McKnight, J.S. 1970. Planting cottonwood cuttings for timber production in the South. USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper SO-60. McNally, J. 1957. A field survey of a koala population. Soc N.S.W. 1955-56, 18-27. P~oc. R.iZ6oi. i:,~

Meskimen: George. 1971. Combatin~ grass competition for euealyptsl~lanted in turf. Reprin~ from Tree Planter's Notes. 21(4). f Mesklmen, G. 1979. plantations. Growth and yield in South Florida's oldest Euc~lyptus Forest Service, USDA. Lehigh Acres, FL. Revis'ed 1980.
1.,, .'.

Meskimen, O. and E.C. Franklin. 1978. Spacing Eucal~p~us ~ in southern Florida: a question of merchantable versus to~al volume. Southern Jour. of Applied Forestry. Vol. I, No. i. February,:
, 4".

Meskimen, G. and E.C. Franklin. 1978a. Spacing eucalyptus in F loridai\Trail. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SEll62. 8 p. '.,

M e t c a l f , ~. 1951. Progress with e u c a l y p t s i n North America 1956-61 ( u n i t e d S t a t e s M a i n l a n d ) , N a t i o n a l Repor~ f o r Second World Eucalyptus Conferance, Sao Paulo, Brazil. AuEust.
Miyata, Edwin S. 1980. Determining fixed and operating costs of logglng equipment. North Central For. Exp. Sta. St. Paul, Minn. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-55. Moehring, D.M. and Z.K. Rawls. 1970. Detrimental effects of wet weather logging. J. For. 68(3):156-67. Momoh, Z.O. and I.A.S. Gibson. 1975. Stacus of diseases and insect pests in Africa and Eurasia. Second FAO World Tech. Consul~ation on Forest Diseases and Insects. New Delhi, April. ":: :'


Moore, W.H. and B.F. Swlndel. 1980. Effects of slta preparation on dry prairie vegetation in South Florida. Southern J. of Applied Forestry. Vol. 5(2):89-92. Morbark Inc. 1980. Cost per ton for producing whole tree chips. Model 22~XL Total Chiparvestor. June.


Morrow, P.A. and V.C. LaMer=he, Jr. 1978. Tree ring evidence for chronic insect suppression of productivity of sub-alpine Eucalyptus. Sci. Vol. 201(29):I24A-12A6. Motley, E.P., B.G. Cruz, L. McClanathan and J.A. Anastasi. 1980. Potential application of biomass technology at national space technology laboratories and Mississipoi army ammunition plant. U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command. large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory. Dove=, New Jersey. Mount, A.B. 1958. The effect of plant wastes on fores= productivity. Proc. 5th general conf. !FA, Perth, Australia. Myburgh, H.H. 1967. 21:49-53. Kraft pulping of eucalypts in South Africa. APPITA

Olawoye, O.O. 1972. Economic investigation of silage sycamore producuion. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio St. Univ. Columbus. Office of Technology Assessment. 1980. Energy from biological processes. Draft Report. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Opie, J.E , R.A. Curtain and W.D. Incoll. 1978. Stand ~anagement. In: Eucalyptus for Wood Production. Eillis and Broom (eds.). pp. I-~9-197. Papadakis, J. 1970. Cl~mate of the world. Ubro de Edicon, Argentina. 47 pp.

Penford, A.R. and J.L. Willis. 1961. The eucalypts: botany, cultivation, chemistry, and utilization. 551 pp. Interscience Publishers, Inc. New York. Pickford, G.D. and R.K. LeBarron. 1960. A study of forest plan=atlons for timber production on the island of Hawaii. Tech. Pap. No. 52. Dec. Pac. SW For. and Rge. Exp. Sta. Berkeley, CA. Dept. of Agriculture and Conservation, Hawaii. iPlo=kin, Steven E. 1980. Energy from biomass/nhe environmental effects. Environment 22:6. November.


PodBer, F.D. !975. Fast growing hardwoods for developing councr{esr:he fores disease and insect pest po=i=ion. Second FAO World Technical Consultation on Fores= Diseases and Insect. New Delhi. April 7-12. FAO/IUFRO/I/75/16-O/(b). Pang, T.Y. 197A. The =e6mi=e problem in planet=ion fores:=y in PeninJula Malaysia. For. Res. Inst. Kepong Mi~eo. Pryor, L.D. ~ 9 5 6 . Chlorosls and lack of vigour in seedlings of renantherous species of Eucal,/p~us caused by mycorrhlzae. Proc. Linn. So~. N.S.W. 81, 91-6. Pryor, L.D. !977. Breeding'hablcs of =he Eucalyptus in relation o introducclon and improvement throughout =he world. Invited Lec:ure, Third tdorld Conferences on Forest Tree Breeding. Riekerk~ H., J.C. Hendrickson and W.S. Gain. 1981. Size and environmental e~fects o~ tree biomass silvlcul=ure. 1981 International Gas Research Conference. Sept, - 0c=. Los Angeles~ CA. Ride, W.D.L. 1970. Univ. Press: A guide =o the Native Marmnals of Australia. Melbourne. Oxford

Rockwood, D.L. and L.F. Conde. 1975. Genetic variation for biomass production in Eucal~ptus ~randis. IU'FRO Symposium and Workshop on Genetic Improvement and Productivity of Fast Growing Species. Rockwood, D.L. and A.E. Squillace. 1981. Increasing alcohol production from wood by utilizing genetic variation in wood characteris=is. TAPPI. Rolls~ E.C. 1969. They all ran wild. Australia. 44A pp. Angus and Robertson, Sydney,

Rose, D.W. 1975. Cost of producing energy from wood in intensive cultures. Jour. of Env. Management, 5, 23-35. (1977). Rose, D.W. 1976. Economic investigations of ~;;tensive silviculure systems. Iowa State Jour. of Res. 50(3):301-315. Rose, D.W. 1977. Cost of producing energy from wood in intensive cultures. Jour, of Env. Man. 5:23-35. Rose, D.W. and R.D. Kallstrom. 1976. Economic feasibility of intensive culture. In: Intensive Plan=allan Culture: 5 years research. U.S. Dept.'~f Agr. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-21. p. 96-108. U.S. Dept. of Agr. For. Serv. North Cent. For. Exp. Sta., St. Paul Minn. Rose, D.W. and D.S. DeBell. 1978. Economic assessmen~ of intensive culture of shor~-rotation hardwood crops. Jour. of For. 76:706-711. Rose, Die=mar, Karen Ferguson, David C. Lothner and J. Zavi=kovski. 1981. An economic and energy anal'isis of poplar intensive cultures in the Lake S~a~es. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-196. North Cent. For. Exp. eta,

Sachs, Roy M., David W. Gilpin and Tom Mock. !980, Short-rotation eucalyptus as a biomass fuel. CaliforLia Agriculture. Aug-Sept. Sajdak, R.L., Y.Z. Lal, G.D. lIroz and M.F. Jurgensan. 1981. Fores= biomass for enerBy. In: 5iomass as a nonfossil fuel. ACS Symposium Series IA4. American C--hemical Society. Washington, D.C. pp 21-&8. Salo, D.J., R.E. lnman, B.J. McGurk and J. Verhoff. 1977. Land suitability and availability. Silvicultural Biomass Farms. Vol. 11!. HTR-73A7 McLean, VA: The MITRE Corp. Salo, D.J., J.F. Henry and R.E. Inman. 1979. Design of a pilot silvicultural blomass farm at the Savannah River Plan~. NTIS. March. The }IZTRE Corp. Schonau, A.P.G. 1977. Initial responses to fertilizing Eucalyptus ~randis . a= planting are sustained until harvesting. S. Afr. For. J. 72-80. Schondu, A.P.G., R. Verloren van Themaa=, and D.I. 3oden. 1980. The importance of complete site preparation and fertilizing in the estahlihsment of Epcalyptus ~ . Wattle Research Institute, University of Natal. Pietermari=zburg, South Africa. 17 pp. Schory, E.A., Sr. 1960. Serv. Ft. Myers. Eucalyptus planting guide for Florida. 17 pp. Fla. For.

Shukla, 3. and Y. Min=z. 1982. Influence of land-surface evapotranspiration on the Earth's climate. Science. Vol. 215. March. Siddiqui, K.M., M. Khan, S. Akhtar. 1979. Results of 10-year old Eucalyptus camal~lensis Dehn. provenance study at Peshawar. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar. Simoes, J.W., H.J.O. Krough, A.D. Ciero Nero, and R.H. Pompeu. 1972. Influencia do vigor des arvores sobre a brocacao das toucas de eucalipto. IPEF 5, 51-6. Smith, J.H.G. and D.S. DeBell. 1973. Opportunities for short-rotation culture and complete utilization of seven northwestern tree species. Forestry Chronicle AP(1). Smith, W.H. and L.F. Conde. 1980. Energy and chemcials from woody species in Florida. Annual Report to U.S. Dept. of Energy, Grant No. ET-786-01-30&0, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Unv. of Fla. Gainesville.


Solar Energy Reserach Institute. 1979. Synopsis and executive ~ummary. A Survey of Biomass Gasification, VoL. I. GoLden Co: Solar Energy Research Institute.
Spurgeon, David.

1980. The promise of agroforestry. American Forests. 86(10) October. Pub~. by The American Forestry Assocla=ion.

Steinbeck, D. R.G. HcAlplne, and J.T. May. 1972. Short-rotation culture o f sycamore: a status report, J. For. 70:210-213. S=einbeck, K. 1973. Short-rotaclon forestry in the United States: a literature review. Proc. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., New Orleans, LA, March 11-15. Stibbe, E. 1975. Soil Moisture depletion in s u ~ e r by an eucalyptus grove in a desert area. Agro-Ecosystems 2:117-126. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam. Stidd~ Charles K., W.B. Fowler, and 3.D. Helvey. 1975. Irrigation Zncreases rainfall? Science. Vol. 188. pp. 279-281. April 18. Tillman, D.A. 1977. Energy from wastes: an overview of presen~ technologies and programs, pp 17-39. l__nn: L.L. Anderson and D.A. Tillman. Fuels from Waste. Academic Press, New York. Till.tan, David A. 1978. Wood as an energy resource. New York. 249 pp. Academic Press,

Uhr, Selmer C., George Meskimen and Kenneth Hayes. 1972. Eucalyptus for pulp in south Florida. Pres. Sixth TAPPI Fores= Biology Conference. Appleton, WI. May 2. 7 pp. Uhr, Selmer C. 1976. Eucalypt --the wonder tree. 82(i0):42-43, 59, 60-63. American Forests.

Urslc, S.J. and P.D. Duffy. 1972. Hydrologic performance of eroded lands stabilized with pine. Proc. Mississippi Water Resources Conference. pp. 203-216. Water Resources Research Institute, Mississppl Sta~e University, State Collage, Miss. USDA Forest Service. 1967. Forestland Tree Planter. ED&T Report 2~00-2, USDA For. Se.-v. Equip. Development C=r., San Dimes, CA.


'tail, Charles W. Z979. A preliminary screening of woody plants as biomaJs crops on energy ~arm. U.S. Dept. oE Energy, DOE/ET/Z3124-TI. Dec. 38 pp. Wal:er, H. 1973. Vegetarian of the e a r t h . 237 pp.
Welters, GeraLd A.


Nay York.

1980, Sallgna eucalyptus growth in a 15 year old spacing study in Hawaii. Psc. S.W, For. and Rge. Exp. St., Res. Pap. No. PSW-151. Feb. U.S. Dept. of Agr.

Wan, E.Z., J.A. Simmons, and T.D. Nguyen. 1980. ?roduccion o~ fuels and chemicals Erom syntheaiJ gas. A Survey of S!omass Oamfica~ion Voi, Ill. GoLden, CO~ S o l a r Energy Research Inltitu=e, Wang, Flora C., John Richardson, Katherlne Carter Ewel and Edward T. Su11van. 1981, Preliminary energy anslysis of utilizing woody biomass fuel. I.nn: W.J. Mitsch, R.W. Bosserman and J.H. Elopatek. 1981. Energy and Ecological Modelling. Elsevier, ~ . Wardle, P.A. 1967. Spacing in Plantations: Forestry 40(I):47-69.
a management


Warren, Jack. 1977. Logging cost anaysls, t~mber harvesting short course. Timber harvesting Rap. &. LZU/HS~ Logging and Forestry Operations Center, Bay St. Louis, M.S.
WaEtle R e s e a r c h Institute. 1981. R e p o r t f o r 1980-1981 ( T h i r t y - F o u r t h Oc=ober. ISBN 0 86980 2631. Unv. of N a t a l . Pietermarltzburg, Year),

South Africa. NarCs, 1971.

W h i t e , E.H. and D.D. Hook.


1975. Escabllshmen= and r e g e n e r a t i o n Iowa State Jour. of Res. 49:287-296.

of silage

Whito, E.R. and W.L. Prltcheet. 1970. Water table c o n t r o l and fertilization for pine production in the flatwoods. AE. Exp. Sta. Inst. of Food and AB. Sci. Bul. 743 (=ech) November. Yang, Chr~s=ine, Donald Murals and Curt Beck. 1977. 3iomaas energy for Hawaii. Vol. IV. Terrestrial and Marine Plants=ions. Institute for Energy STudies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Zavi=kovski, J. 1976. Biomass studies in intensively managed forest stands. pp. 32-37. l~n: Intensive plantation culture; five years research. USDA For. Serv. Gen Tech. Rep. NC-21, North Cent. For. Exp. Sta. St. Paul, MN.

ZavEkovski, J. 1979. Energy produccon in ~rrgaEed, inEP.nsvct~, cul=ured plan=a=ions o Pop[us 'Trls=is ~I' and jack pine. N.C. For. Exp. S=a. S. Paul, .HN. Zon, Raphael and John M. Briscoe. 1911. Eucalypts in Florida. of Ag, For. Serv. Bul. 87. U.S. Dept.


PERSONAL CO~D~NZCAT~ONb Allen, J. Allen ~rove Service. AFOCEL. France. Lakeland, FLorida. (813) 6~4-666L. (904) 396-2891. Lakeland, Florida. (8L3) 686-2533.

Boulay, Michel. Bradley, Ed. Chancey, Joe. Cowan, Frank. Cremer, Ernes=. Dart, David. ~emaresc, Don.

Sou=hem Machinery. Chsncey Trailers. Forester.

jacksonville, Florida.

Floral Ci=y, Florida.

(90A) 726-4061. (904) 328-5058.

Cremer Timber Company.

PaLa=ka, Florida.

U.S. Fores= Service.

Portland, Oregon.

(503) 2BI-2088.

Speed!ing, Inc. 'Ruskin, Florida.

(813) 645-3261.

Dixon, Wayne. FZorida Division of Fores=ry. (904) 372-3505. Draper, Lee.

Gainesville, Florida.

Coatainer Corporation of .America. Callahan, Florida.

(904) 879-305L.
EloEf, Don. Ring Power Corporation. Ocala, Florida. (90~) 732-2800.

Franklin, E. C. Franklin Forestry Associates. (919) 362-5958. Futch, Jona=hon. 2545. Fu~ch Timber Company.

Apex, North Carolina. (912) 487(813) 646-

Hc~e=ville, Georgia. Lakeland, Florida.

Hebb, Mark. Florida Division of Forestry. 2959. Lancaster, Bill.

Timberjack, inc. Perry, Florida. Ft. Myers, Florida.

(904) 58~5063.

Lee Timber Company. Mar~in, J. A.

(813) 334-3132. (813) 773-6736. C813) 334-

Martin Lumber Company.

Wachula,. Florida.

Mesklmen, George. U.S. Fores= Service. 4579. Swendsen, Ben. Lykes Bros. Ranch.

Lehigh Acres, Florida.

Palmdale, Florida.

(813) 765-3545.


~brking Document No. 2 Vegetative Propagation of Eucallapts .~eferences

BIBLIOGRAPHY AneJa, S., and C. K. Atal. 1969. Plan=let formation in tissue culture from lignotubers of Eucalyptus citriodora. Hook. Cur. Sci. 38:69. Baker, D. K., R. A. deFossard, and R. A. Bourne. 1977. Progress coward clonal propaga=~o= of Eucalyptus species by tissue culture techniques. Proc. Inc. Plant Prop. Soc. 27:546-556. Carlson, P. S. 1 9 7 3 . The use of protoplas=s Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 70:598-602. Carlson, P.S. and J. C. Polacco. aspects of crop improvement. for genetic research. gane~ic of

1975. Plant cell cultures: Scl. 188:622-625. Organ

Cresswell, R. J. and R. A. deFossard. 1974. Eucalygtus $randis. Aust. Forestry 37:55-69. Cresswell, R. and C. Nitsch. 1975. L. Planta (Berl.) 125:87-90.


Organ culture of Eucalyptus grandis

Debergh, P. C. and L. J.. Maene. 1981. A scheme of commercial propagation of ornamental plants by =Issue culture. Scien=la Hortic. 14:335-543. Debergh, P., Y. Harhaoui, and R. Lemur. (in press). Mass propagation Of globe artichoke (Cvn&ra scolymus): evaluation of different hypotheses uo overcome vlrrification with special reference co water potential. Physiol. Plantarum 52:(In press). deFos~ard, R. A., M. T. Bennett, J. R. Gorse and R. A. Bourne. 1978. Tissue culture propagation of Eucalyptus ficlfolia. F. Muell. Proc. Int. Plan= Prop. Soc. 28:427-435 Destremau, D. X., J. N. ~ r l e n and M. Boulay. 1980. Selection e t multiplication veBetative d'hybrides d'eucalyptus resistan= au frold. "Symposium and Workshop on Genetic Improvement and Productivity of Fas~-growin~ Tree Species." Aquas de Sao Petro, $.P., Brazil. Dhawan, A. K., D. M. Paton and R. R. Willing. 1979. Occurrence and bioassay responses of G: a plant growth regulator in Euca!y~us and other myrcaceae. Planta 146:419-422. Donnan, A. Jr., $. E. Davidson and C. L. Williams. !978. Establlshmen of tissue culture-grown plants in the greenhouse environment. Proc. Fla. State Ror~. Soc. 91:235-237. Durand-Cresswe1.!, ~. and C. Niusc~. 1977. Factors regeneration of Eucalyptus ~randls by organ Horticul. 78:149-155. influencing the culture, Ac~a


Eisanhar=, M. L. and J. O'Ste~ra, 1980. Con~alner s~edllng production. In EucaD~.~_~ Handbook, pp. 23-32, R. Kelllson ed., N.C.S.U. Hardwood Research Program, RnleIBh. Ek, A. R. and D. D. Dawson. ~976. Yields of intensively grown Popu~us: actual and projected, pp. 5-9, In Intensive Plantation Culture; Five Years Research. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech, Rep. NC-21, Nor=hcentral For. Lxp. Sin., St. Paul, ~ . Eldrldge, K. G. 1978. Genetlca 27:5. Genetic improvement of eucalypts. Sivae

Evans, D, A., W. R. Sharp and C. E. Flick. 1981. Growth and behavior of cell cultures: embryoBenesis and organogenesls. In Plant Tissue Culture: Methods and Applications in Agrlcul~ure. pp. &5-I13, Academic Press: New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, San Francisco. Franclet, A. and M. Boulay. 1981. Micropropaga=ion of forest resistant eucalyp= clones. Xlll International Bo~anlcal Congress, Sidney, Australia (preprin=). Geary., T. F. and G. Meskimen. 1980. Handbook, pp. 4-21. R. Kellison Program, Raleigh. Seed technology. In Eucalzptus ed., N.C.S.U. Hardwood Research

Goncalves, A. N. 1975. The growth and developmental physiology o Eucal,vpuus in cell and =issue culture systems. MS. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus. (cited in Goncalves, 1979). Goncalves, A. N. 1979. Tissue culture of Eucalyptus, pp. 509-526. In W. R. Sharp, P. O. Larsen, E. F. Paddock, and V. Raghavan (~ds.~, Plan= Cell and Tissue Culture, Ohio St. Univ. Press, Columbu3.

Hartman, R. D. 1979. Tissue culture Foliage Digest. Z:2-8.

from a propagators


Hartney, V. J. 1980. Vegetative propagation of the eucalypts. For. Res. I0:191-211.


Hartney, V. J. and P. K. Barker. 1980. The vegetative propagation of eucalypts by tissue culture. Symposium and ~orkshop on Genetic Improvement and Productivity of Fast-growing Tree Species, Innernational Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Aguas de Sao Pedro, S.P., Brazil, August 25-30. Henny, R. J., J. F. i ~ a ~ s s and A. Dour~n, Jr. 1981. Fo!iage plant =issue culture. I._nnFoliage Plant Production, pp. 137-178, J. N. J o i n e r (ed.), Pren=i:e-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Howland, G. P. 1975. ~c:ision of UV-lnduued pyrimldine dimers from the DNA of wild carrot protoplasts. Nature 254:160-161.


Howland, G. P. and R. W. Hart. 1977. Radlaulon blology o cultural plane cells, pp. 731-756. I__n.nJ.Reinart, and U.P.S. BaJa~ (ads.), Applied and Fundamental Aspects o~ Plan~ CQII, Tissue, and Organ Culture, Sprlngcr-VerlaE, New York. Hu Hen, Hsi Tze-Ying, Tseng Chun-Chln, Ouyan E Tsun-lven and Chlng ChlanKang. 1978. Application of Anther cul~ura co crop plants. In

Fronnlers of Plann Tissue Culnure 1978, pp. 123-130, T. A. Thorpe

(ed.), Univ, of Calgary Press, Calgary. !kemori, Y. K. 1975. Resutados preliminarios sobre enraizmento de es=acas de Eucslypcos. Araeruz Forestal, S.A., technical note No. I. (cited by Francle~ and Boulay, 1981). Ki=ahara, E. R. and L. S. Caldas. 1 9 7 5 . Shoo= and rooc forms=ion in hypoco=yl c~llus cultures of Eucalyptus. For. Sci. 22:242-243. .Knauss, J. F. |(&C. A tissue culture me=hod for producing Dieffenbachla i c ~ cv. 'Perfection' free o~ fungi and baccerla. Proc. Fla. S~aue ~oru. Soc. 89:295-296. Knauss, J. and J. W. Miller. 1978. A contaminant, Erwinia carocovora, affecting commercial plane Elssue cultures. In Vitro 14:754-756.

Lakshmi Siva, G. and C. S. Vaidyanachan. 1979. Rapid multiplication of Eucalyptus by mul~iple shoot production. Cur. Sci. 48(8):351-352.
Lea, E. C. M. and R. A. deFossard. 1974. The effects o~ various auxins and cytokinins on the in vitro cultures of seem and llgno=uber ~issues of Eucalyptus bancrof=ii Maiden. New Phy~ol. 73:701-717. Mallga, P. 1978. ResistancQ mutant3 and ~heir use in gene~ic manipulation. I._nn Frontiers of Plan= Tissue Culture L978, pp. 381-392, T. A. Thorpe (ed~), Univ. of Calgary Press, Calgary. Mar~in B. and G. Quillec. 1974a. Bouturage des arbres foresciers au Congo: resuka=s des essais effac~ues a Polnte Noire de 1969 a

1973. 41-57.

Revue Bois e~ Fo=a~s des Tropicques.

154 (b~rch-April):

197~c. 1974d.

155 (May-June) :

39-61. 2t-40.

156 (July-August):

157 (Sepcember-Occobe=):

Murashige, T. and F. Skoog. L962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bloassays with cobao=o clssue cultures. Physiol. Plancarum !5:473-497. Nabors, M. W. 1 9 7 5 . Using spontaneous17 occurring and induced mutations to obcaln agriculturally useful plan~s. Bioscience 26(12):



~Iicholls, W., W. D. Crow, and D. M. Patch. physiology of rooting inhibltors in adult

Gro =h S . b s = . n = o s 1 9 7 0 , pp.

1970. ~issue

Chemistry and o~ EucalvDcus


erlln, Heldelburg, New York:


Nienstaedt, |{. 1981. "Super" spruce seedlings continue superior growth for ~8 years. U.S. Department of AKrlculture Yores~ Service, Research Note NC-265, 4 p. Paton, D.}L, R. R. Willing, W. Nicholls, and L. D. Pr~or. [970. Rooting Of stem cuttings of Eucalyptus: a rooting inhibitor in adult :issue. Aus=. J. Boc. 18:175-180. Patch, D. M. and ~. R. Willing. 1974. ~nhibitor transport and ontogenic age in Eucalz~=us ~randis. !._n.nPlant Growth Substances [973, pp. 126-132. Tokyo, Japan: Hiro'kawa Publishing Co. Promnltz, L. C. and P~ H. Wray. 1976. P.apld selection techniques for identlfyinE superior clones. ~n Intensive Plantation Culture. U.S. Dept. of Ag. For. Set., Gen. Teeh. Rap. NC-21, pp. 25-31. Quan, 0., L. Qu-quan and P. Rai-zhong. 1980. Preliminary report on the dsvelopmen= of the embryold from Eucalyptus. Acts Phytophysiologica Sinica 6:429-432. quart, 0., P. Hai-zhong, and L. quan. 1981. Studies on ~he development of embryoid from Eucalyptus callus. Scientai Silvae Sinica 17:1-7. Reinert, H. and Y. P. S. BaJaJ. 1977. Anther culture: Haploid production and its significance. In Applied and Fundamental Aspac:s of Plant Cell Tissue and Organ C'-ul~ure, pp. 25i-267, J. Reinert and Y. P. S. BaJaj (ads.), Berllne, Springer-Verlag. Schieder, O. 1978. Production and uses of metabolic and chlorophyll deficient mutants. In Frontiers of Plan~ Tissue Culture 1978, pp. 393-401, T. A. Thorp~-(ed.), Univ. of Calgary Press, Calgary. Wilson, B. F. and Bachelard, E. P. 1975. Effects of girdling and defoliation on root ac=ivi: 7 and survival of Eucalyptus re,hans and E. vlminalis seedlings. Ins=. J. Plant Physiol. 2:197~206. (Cited by Hat,nay, 1980).
- - .

Wray, P. H. and L. C. Promnitz. 1975. Concrolled-envlronmen= selection of Pooulu____._~sclones. !__n_u~n~ensivePlantation Cul~ure. U.S. Dept. of Ag. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-21, pp. 19-24.


~orking Document No. 3 Florida's Eucalyptus E-.ergy Farm and LVetha~l


- The

Background Envirommmt



LITERAXIA~E C~TED Altsi~uler, Z.S., J.B. Cat.hcar~, and E.J. Young. 1964. Geology and g~Dch~tist-~y of the Bon Valley Formation and its ~p'nQspha~e deposits, west-central Florida. GSA, No. 19-21:1-61. Blake v, A.F. 1973. The Florida pho .sphate ir~ustry: a history o f u~a develoBmn~ of a vital mineral. The Wer~.em C n m ~ t e e , Harvard Univ., Can~ridge, MA. 197 .-p. Blue, W.G. 1979. Soil fertility programs for forage and beef cattle production on t.he m/r.eral soils of Florida. Soil Sci. F:a~ Sheeu ~-26, Fla. Coop. ~kt. Serv., ~nst. Food & Ag. Sci., Univ.~F!orida, Gainesville. 4 pp. -, Bradley, J.T. 1972. The cl/mate of Florida, U.S. D e ~ t National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Da~a Service. Silver Springs, FL. 31 pp. of commerce. Environmental
, I

BEeedlove, B.W. and S.R. ~ m s . 1977. Natural systems occurring on mined lands of the Central Florida F~msphate district. Southeast Geol. Scc. Guidebook. No. 19. 77 pp. Br~], N.C. 1974. T~e nature and properties Publishing Co., inc. New York. 639 pp. of ~ils. MacMillan
H .."

Burke, ~LJ., L.V. Gusta, H.A. Cuamme, C.J. Weiser and P.H. Li. 1976. Freezing and injury in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 27:50728. ~ =~_ vz.!. Cooks, C.W. 1939. Scenery. of Florida interpreted by. a geologist. Geol. Surv.; B%11. No. 17. 120 pp. Cooke, C.W. 1945. 29. 342 pp. ~_~ geology of Florida. Fla. is


Fla. Geol. Surv., Bul. No.

Cooper, H.H., Jr., W.E. Kenner, and E. Brown. 1953. Grct~.d Water in Central Florida. FI. Geol. Surv., Pap. Invest. ~b. i0. 37 pp. Coznwell, G.W. and K. Atkins. 1980. An ecological analysis of t~e d r ~ and reflccding of a clay settl/ng pond. Report for Int. Min. and Chem. Corp., Barrow, FL. 93 pp. Ccwardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRce. 1979. Classificaticm of wetlants and deepwater habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Serv., USDI. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Drag~vi~h, A., J.A. Kelly, and HG. G o ~ . 1968. Hydrological and biological charac~eristics of Florida's ~est coast tributaries. Fish and Wildlife Serv., USDI Fish. Bul. 66(3):463-477.


EcoIn~, Inc. 1980. A review of topsoiling, suitability, and feasibility for r e c l ~ ' g p~sphate mine soils in Florida. For Inv~national M~_nerals and ~.micals Corp., Barrow, FL. 105 pp. EcuImpa.ct, Inc. 1981. Cnncepts for the reclamation of mined pits as high quality lakes. .=aport for In~_nmtional Mineral and ~amica!s Corp., Barrow, FL. 139 pp. Edscom%, J.B. wildlife In: U.S. ~ e Seven 1977. .Appendix C: A report on habitat associations and values of unreclaimed phosphate mines, pp. i347-1371. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Invento~l of County Region, Vol. 3.

Florida Depar~Tent cf NaTural Resources. 1975. Florida environm~ntally endancered lands plan. Div. of Rec. and Parks. Bureau of Plans, Programs and Services. Tallahassee, FL. 143 pp. .~armer, E.E. and W.G. Blue. 1978. Reclamation of I m P s mined for phosphate, pp. 585-608. In: F.W. Schaller, arA P. Sutton {eds). Proc. Reclamation of Dras~call.v Disturbed Lands. Am. Soc. Aq., Soil Sci. Am., Madison, WI. Fountain, R.C., and M.E. Ze!lars. 1972. A prcgr~t of ore control in the Central Florida ~ho.~ghate distri~. ~n: H.S. Puri (ed.), Geology of Phosphate, Dolu,ite, L i m s ~ n e - Y and Clay Deposits. Proc. 7th Forum Geol. of Ind. ~_nerals, Apr. 28-30, 1971. Tan~., Fla. De~. Nat. Resour. Spec. Publ. 17. Haler, F.L. and C.E. I ~ . District Atlas. ~ . Brooksville, FL. 31 pp. Ha/n, Hare, J. 1 9 0 3 . Handbook York. 437 pp. 1978. S ~ a t ~ s t Florida Management Planning and Programming Division. ~-Millian C c ~ . y. New

of climatology.

F.K. 1977. Desertification: its causes and consequences. Secretariat of t~he United Nations--Conference on Desertification; Nairubi, ~enya. Pergamon Press. New York. Fla. Geol.

Feath, ~ C . 1961. Surf_ace~ater resources of Polk County. Surv. Inf. Circ. No. 25. 123 pp.

Kangas, ~. 1979. Suc.~.ssion on spoil ~-cm F~nsphate mining. ~ntr. for Wet_lands and Dept. Env. Eng. Sci., Univ. Florida, Ga/~esvil!e. (unpublished). 22 pp. Kavaler, L. 1975. 205 pp. :~onya, A.

Noise--the new menace.

John Day ~ y .

New York.

1980. Design primer for hot c l ~ t e s .

132 ~9.

Architec~ural Press, area. Univ.

Laessle, A.M. 1942. T~_~ plant c ~ t i e s of t~e W e l ~ a Florida, Biol. Sci. Serv. IV(l). 143 pp..


~'essle, A.M. 1958. The origin and successional relationship of sandhill vegetation and sand pine scrub. Ecol. ~nogr. 28. 362-387. Laessle, AM.M 1967. ~elat_ionsh/p of sand pine s~-n~b to former sb~relines. Quart. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 30:269-286. Lan'~csherg, H., H. LippTann, K. Paff~n and C. Troll. of climatology. Springer-Verlag. N ~ York. Leighty, R.G., V.W. Caldw~ll, J.B. Millsap. 1958. Soil Cons. ~ v . 1965. ;~orld .Taps

Carlisle, O.E. Cruz, J.H. Walker, J. Be~n, R.E. Crcmartie, J.L. Huber, E.D. M a t ~ s , and Z.T. Soil Survey. of Hillshorcugh Count-~., Florida. USDA and Fla. ;~. Exp. S~n.

~nke, C.W., E.W. Yeridith and W.S. Wet.~_rhall. 1961. Wa~er resources of Hillsborough County. Fla. Geol. Surv., Pep. inc. No. 83. MDnk. 1965. Southern ~Lxed D~rdwood forest of Nor~h-central Florida. Ecol. M~nogr. 35:335-354.

Monk. 1966. An ecological study of ~rdw%x>d swan.~.s in Nort~h-central Florida. Ecology, 47:649-654. M~nk'. 1968. Successional and e n v ~ t a i vegetation of North-central Florida. relationships of t~e forest Amer. Midl. Nat. 79: 441-457.

Ymnta/bano, F., W.M. Hetrick and T.C. 1978. Duck foods in Cen~-al Florida phosphate settiling ponds, pp. 247-255. In: USDi Fish ar~ Wildlife Serv., Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife-~eeds in t.he Eastern United States: Proceedings of a Sympositun. ,National Asscciauion of ~%nufacturers. 1975. ~ quali~l control-national issues, standards and goals. Pesmrces ~ technology Dept. Washington, 94 pp. ~um, E.P. 1971. Ftmdamentals of ecology. del~hia, PA. 574 pp. W.B. Saunders Co. Phila-

0 h / ~ , A.C., C.A. Tradable and J.R. Re,bins. 1980. B r ~ T e r raciamaticn planting project, soil repot. Soil Cons. Serv., USDA. Pho~te Land Reclamation Co=mission. ~ rmclamat/on. 31 pp. 1978. Report on phosphate

Pe=_k, H.M. 1958. Grotundwarer r~sc~rces of .Manatee County_, Florida. Fla. Geol. Suzv., Pap. Inv. No. 1O. 99 pp. Peek, H.M. 1961. Cessation of flow of Kissengen Springs in Polk County, Florida. In: Water Resources Studies. Fla. Geol. Surv., ~_~. ~v. No. 7. Penman, H.L. 1956. Evaporation: An int_~:~uct/nn sur~ey. Net_her!ands J. Agr. Sci. 66(i0):3309-3312.

109 Pride, R.W., F.W. ~L~yer, and R.N. Cherry. 1966. Hydrology of Green Swamp_ area in Central Florida. F l a . Geol. Su~1., Pep.. Inv. No. 42. 137 pp. Quar~.rman, E. and C. Keever. 1962. Southern mixed herdwocd forest: Climax in southeastern coastal plains. USA. Ecol. Monogr. 32:167185. Reid, G.K. and R.D. Wood. 1976. Ecology of inland ~mters and estuaries. D. vanNostrand Co., New York. 485 up. ScOnces, R.S. and S.R. H~mp.hrey. 1980. Terrestrial plant and wildlife cumunities cn phosphate-mined lands in Central Florida. S.~ecia! Scientific Peport ~b. 3, Off. of Ecol. Se~t., Florida St. M~seum, Univ. of Florida, Gair~.sville. 189 pp. Snedaker, S.C. and A.E. Lugo. 1972. Ecology of t.~ Ocala National Forest. For. ~ 2 . , USDA. 211 pp. SteA-art, H.G., Jr. 1966. Groundwater resources of Polk County. Fla. Geol. Sur., ReD. Inv. No. 44. 169 pp. Thomas, B.P., L. Law, Jr., ar~i D.L. Stankey. 1979. Soil survey of Marion County arsa, Florida. USDA, Soil Cons. Serv. 148 pp. U.S. Army Corps of ~hglneers. 1977. Regulatory program of tDe corps of engineers. Sect. 404 of t ~ ~4PCA. Fed. Reg. 42(138). U.S. D e ~ t of Agricultn/re, Soil Conservation Service. 1975a. Soil ta~--a basic system of soil classification for making and inte~ing soil surveys. ;~. H a n ~ k No. 436. 754 pp. U.S. D e ~ t of Ccmmerce. 1977. Climates of the states. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Water I n f e r / o n Center, Inc. New York. U.S. E n ~ t a l Protection ~ency.. 1978. Final areawide environmental i ~ c t sta~t--Centr-=l Florida phosphate industmI. EPA region 4, Atlanta, GA. Vol. If, VI and X. Veno, P.A. 1976. Successional r~lationships cc~ties. Ecology 57: 498-508. of five Florida plant

Wal~er, H. 1973. Vegetation of the earth in relation to c 4/!mate and the eco-physiolcgical conditions (t.-anslated frcm ~ ) . Springex-Verlag. New York. 237 pp. ~11ite, W.A. 1970. The geology of t ~ Geo. Bul. No. 51. 164 pp. Flori~a pen/nsula. Fla. Bur.

Wilson, W. 1977. G r a t e r resources of DeSoto ar~ Hardee counties. Fla. Geol. Sure., Pep.. Inv. No. 83.


Wrighu, A.A. Florida.

1974. Environmental g e o ~ and hydrolc~., ~ Fla. Geol. Surv., Spec. Pub. No. 19. 94 pp.


Working Doc~ent No. 4 H~Ith and Safety A~.ct~ of the Florida Eucalypt Biomass to Methanol System References

LZTERATURE CITED A d v i s o r y Cen=er on ~oxi=ology {ACT). 1959. Repot= on m ~ t h a n o l . ~aqes 82-103 I_~nTo:l=oloqy od po~entially hazardous materials, P=ru ~il. ~4a~ion,~l Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, WashingKon, D.C. Ames, B. 1977. The detection and hazards of environmen=a! carcinogens/mucagets. (Recorded ~alk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society. Berger, B. J. 1974. Environmental aspects of methanol as vehicular fuel: health and environmental effects. =n The production of methanol ~rom coal for fuel use. Univ. California, Livermore, CA. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 1979. Occupational injuries and illnesses for 1978. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C. ~ e w s l e ~ e r USDL-79-788. 1979. Occupational injuries and illnesse~ in the Uni=ed States by industry, 1976. U. S. Dept. o~ Labor, Washington, D.C. 3u!l. 2019. Cheng, R. T. 1977. Applications of chemical and physical dosim4tr?. corded talk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society. (Re-

Colwell, R. R. and G. S. Sayler. 1978. Hicrcbial degradation 6f industrial chemicals. I._nn R. Michell (ed.), Water p o l l u ~ o n microbiology, Vol. If. Wiley and Sons, New York. Cremer, K. W., R. N. Cromer, and R. G. Florence. 197S. Stand establishment. Pages 81-135 I__nnH. E. Hillis and A. G. Brown (eds.), Eucalypts for wood producKion. Commonwealth Scienulfic and Industrial Research Organization, Australia. Grlffen B. press, Ltd. Davy McKee, Inc. 1981. Florida eucalyptus ~asification ~ests. Perfo.--med for Biomass Energy Systems, Inc., Lakeland, FL. DMI-SESI, PN 7018, 05-6267001. I0 pp. DeAngells, D. G., D. S. Ruffin, J. A. Peters, and R. 8. Reznik. !980. Source assessment: Residential combustion of wood. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/280-042b. D'Eliscus, P. }~. 1977. Biological effects of methanol spills in=o ma~inc, estuarine, and freshwater habitats. Paper presented a~ ~he International Symposium on Alcohol Fuel Technology - Methanol and Ethanol. Wolfsbuxg, Federal Republic of Germany. Novemhe~ 21-23. Doemeny, L. J. 1977. Recent developments in workplace and worPer monitoring. (Recorded talk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society.


Evans, J. M. 1977. Comparative practices in worke~ protection. ~alk) Symposium of ~he American Chemical Socie=y. ~reudenthal, R. I., G. A. Lutz, and R. J. Michel. 1975. uial of coal and coal conversion pro~ects. B a ~ e l l e Columbus, OH.


Carcanogenic po~unLaboratories,

Gamble, J. F. ~.979. Health e~fects of wood dust. Pages 68-90 In Small plan~s and ~heir medical problems - the furniture industry. National institute for Occupational Safety and Heal~h. Occupational Safe~y and Health Symposium. Ghassemi, M., R. lyer, and R. Sc~fie!d. Env. Sol. & Tech. 15(8):866-873. 1981. Effects of syn~uel use.

Harris, L. R., J. A. Gideon, S. Beradinelli, L. D. Reed, and R. D. Dobbin. 1980. Coal liquefaction: recent findings in occupational safe~y and heal~h. National Institute for Occupational Safety and ~ a l = h . DHHS (NIDSH) Publ. No. 80-122. 14 pp. Hiues, R. A. 1977. Gas chromatograph/mass and receiving wa~er. (Recorded ~alk} Chemical Society. spectra analysis of wastewater Symposium of ~he American

Johnson, R. C., K. K. Lay, and L. C. Newman. 1980. Energy from biomass: technoloqy assessment of terrestrial biomass systems. MITRE Corp., McLean, VA. MTR-80W259. December. Kilian, D. J. 1977. Medical surveillance in rish assessment. talk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society. MZTRF. Corp. (see Johnson, et el., 1980). (Recorded

Mueller Associates, Inc. 1981. Alcohols from biomass: State-of-knowledge survey of environmental, health, and safety aspects. Baltimore, ~ . U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Environmental Programs, DOE conurac~ No. DE-AC01-81EVI0450. October. 126 pp. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1977. Criteria document: recommendations for an occupational exposure standard for coal ear products. Dept. of Health, Education , and Welfare (NIOSH) Publ. No. 78-107. 242 pp. 1978. Criteria for a recommended standard...occupational exposures -----~n coal gasification plan~s. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare (NIOSH) Publ. No. 78-191. 195 pp. ~ , and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1978. Pocket guide uo chemical hazards. F. W. Mackison, R. S. S~ricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). Dept. o4 Health, Education, and Welfare (NIOS||) Publ. ~o. 78-210. 191 pp.


:~owacki, P. 1980. Health hazards and pollution control ~n syn~he%i= conversion. Noyes Da~a Corp., Park Ridge, }'J. 511 }~p. paul, J. K. (ed.). 1978. Methanol ~echnolog%' and app!:ca~icn Noyes Da~a Co~p., Park Ridge, NJ. 469 pp. In m o ~ r



Press, E., J. A. Gcggins, H. Poetic, K. Jones, F. Perlman, al~d J. R. Evurutt. 1977. Health hazards to timber and forestry workers from the Douglas-fir ~ussock moth. Archives of Env. Health 32:206-210. Reed, T. B. (ed.). !PBI. Bicmass gasification: Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, ~:J. 401 pp. prinuiples and zechnolcgy.

Safety Sciences. 1976. An overview o~ the occupational safety and health problems in ~he l~%%ber and wood products industry. ~hase I Report for Occupational Safety and Health Adrainistra~ion. WSA, Inc., San Diego, CA. Schuresko, D. D. 1977. Portable fluorometric monitors uo detect PAH contamination of work area surfaces. (Recorded talk) Sl.~posium of the American Chemical Society. Specht, R. L., . M. Brouwer, and E. H. Derrick. 1975. Seasonal waves of asthma: a possible botanical cause. Int. J. Biometeorol. 19(i):2S-36. Telesca, D. 1977. ~rocess equipment problems and solutions in coal conversion processes. (Recorded talk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society. Thilly, W. 1977. Gene locus mutagens: human health hazards which could be monitored in the workplace. (Recorded ~alk) Symposium of the American Chemical Society. TRW. 1976. Carcinogens relating to coal conversion processes. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), Washington, D.C. 92 pp.

Utah Biomedical Test Laboratory (UBTL). 1975. Preliminary study of energyrelated occupational health research projects. TR 184-C01 (June). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Compilation of air pollution emission factors. USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Publ. No. AP-42. Third edition. Research Triangle Park, NC. Waldbot~, G. L. 1978. Health effeaus of environmental Mosby Co., St. Louis, MO. Watson, A. P. and E. L. Etnier. 1981. alternative energy technologies: Manage. 5(4):313-327. ppllutants. C.V.

Health and safety implications of I. Geothermal and biomass. Env.

weast, R. C. and M. J. Astle (eds.). 1979. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. CRC Press, ~nc., Boca Raton, FL. ~ilson, R., S. D. Colome, J. D. Spengler, and D. Gordon. 1980. Health effects of fossil fuel burning. Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, ~ . -53-

~'~rking Document }b. 5 Florida Eucalyptus ~%ergy Farm and Methanol Refinery- Environmental Impact Assessment Befer~nces


Abelson, P h { l i p H. !981. Vol. 213. No. 4508.

EnerBy and chemicals from blomaas. August.


Abrahamsen, Gunner. 1980. Impact o~ atmospheric s u l f u r deposlclon on f o r e s t ecosystems. I...~n: A=mospheric SuLfur Deposition. D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. Lndber~ (eds.). Ann Arbor Science.

Adams, D.F., S.O. Farae11, M.R. Dack, and E. Robinson. 1980. Estimates o~ natural sulfur source streng=hs. In: Atmospheric Sulfur Depose:ion. D.S. Shrlner, C.R. Richmond and S . E . Lindberg (eds.). Ann Arbor Science. Aneja, Piney P. 1980. Direc= measurements of emisson races of som~ a~mospheric biogenic sulfur compounds end ~heir possible mpor=nnce ~o ~he s t r a t o s p h e r l c aerosol l a y e r . I n : A~mospheric Sulfur D e p o s i t i o n . D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. L-~ndberg (eds.). Ann Arbor Science.

Baker, R.G. 1966. Volatile gro~h inhibltors produced by Eucalyptus globulus. Hadrono, 18:206-210. Bandy, Alan R. and Peter J. }~roulis. 1980. Zmpac= of recent messuremen=s of OCS, Ca2, and SO2 in background air on The global sulfur cycle. In_..!A~mospherlc S u l f u r Deposition. D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. Lindberg (eds.). Ann Arbor Science. Bateman, R.P. 1963. Effect on field machine compac=ion on soil physical .properties end crop response Transac=ions of the ASAE. "rot. 6, No. i.
Blymer, M.J. and H.S. Mosby. 1977. Deer u t i l i z a t i o n o f clearcucs in Southwestern Virginia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. I:I0-15.

Braunsteln, H.M., P. Kanciruk, R.D. Roop, F.E. Sharpies, J.S. Tatum and K.H. Oakes. 1981. Biomass energy sys=ems and the environment. Pergsmon Press. New York. p p . I03~136. Budiansky, S. 1980. Bioenergy: Tech. i & ( 7 ) : 7 6 9 - 7 7 1 . the lesson of wood burning? Env. Sci. and

Chamberland, A.C. 1980. Dry deposition o~ sulfur dioxide, lu: Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition. D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E.'~indberg (eds.). Ann Arbor Science.


Cole, Dale W. and S=anley P. GasJel. 1980. ~lovemQnu o~ elamencu through a E o r a s C soll a a influenced by t r e e r e m o v a l and ~ e r c L l ~ z e r addS=ions. Forest Soil Relationshlps.' Colwell, R.R. and G.S. Sayter. 1978. Microbial dezradatlon o~ industrial chemicals. Water Pollution Microbiology, R. Mitchell (ed.). Nitey Znterscience Vol. If. Comer, C.L. and N. Nelson. 1975. Health e~fec=s of fossil fuel combustion products: ~eport o~ a workshop. Environmental Health Perspec=~ves. Vol. 12. Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of EnvironmentaZ Pollutants. 1977, Nitrogen oxides. Division of)ledical Sciences, As=embly of Life Sciences, Nat'l. Res. Coun. Nac'l. Academy of Sciences. Wash. D.C. 333 pp. Council on Envlronmencal Quality. 1980. The eleventh annual report. Environmental Quality 1980. December. Cromer, R.N. and M. Raupach. 1975. Eucalypt plan=scions in Australia the po=entlal for intensive production and u=ilizacion. APPITA. 29(3). November. Cronan, Christopher S. 1980. Consequences of sulfuric acid inputs to a forest soil. In:'D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. Lindberg (eds.) Ann Arbor Science. Dallaire, Gene. 1981. Industry chal~enges EPA on whether certain wastes are hazardous or not. Civil Engineering. 51(9):79. Davy McKee International. Ins=. Houston, TX. 1981. Lignite to methanol. Electric Power Research

Delmoral, R. and C.H. Muller. 1970. The allelopathic effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensls. American Midland Nacurallst. 83:25A-282. Dyrness, C.T., C.T. Youngberg and R.H. Ruth. 1957. Some effects of logging and slash burnin~ on physicnl soll properties in the Corvallis watershed. U.8. For. Serv. Pac. ~ For. Rge. Exp. Sca. Res. Pap. PNW-19. EcoZmpact, Znc. 1982. Florida*s eucalyptus enarqy farm: The nauural system in,efface. Gainesville, Florida. 30 pp.


Evergreen Energy Corporation. 1982. The Wood-Eueed Baslfica=on =y=~am. Final Engineering Report. Documen~ @8. Biomass Energy Systems, ~nc. H a r r i | , J.A. 1976, EfEec~= o~ fora=~ u ~ i l i z ~ = o n on insec=s. A=ivi=y 75. For. Comm. VLc. p. 29. Z~n: Research

R a r r o l d , L . L . , D.L. Brakenslek, J.L. HcGuinness and F.R. D r e l b e l l s . 1962. ~ n f l u e n c e o f land sue and =reatmen= on the h y d r o l o g y oE smart w a : e r sheds at Coshos~on, Ohio 1938-1957. U.S. Dept. A ~ r i c . Tech. 3 u l . No. 1256. Health Education and Wel~are. 1963. Clinical handbook of economic poisons.

Hicks, B.B. and H. L. Wesely. 1980. Turbulent transfer processes ~o a surface and inerac=ion wi=h vegetation. In: A=mospheric Sulfur Deposition. D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond an'-dS.E. Lindberg (eds.). Ann A=bor Science.
Hillls, I__n: Eucalypcs for Wood W.E. 1978. Wood q u a l i ~ y and u ~ i l l z a = o n . Production. W.E. Hillis and A.C. Brown (ed.). CSIRO. Australia.

Rillls, W.E. and A.G. Brown (eds.). 1978. Eucalypcs for wood production. 43A pp. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Melbourne, Vic~orla. Griffin P~ess Ltd. Adelaide, S. Australia. Huncer, Donald. 1969. Diseases of o c c u p a t i u v s . Lit=le,
Brown and Company.

Hurlbert, Stuart H., M.F. Mulla, and Harold R. Wilson. 1972. E~fects of an organophosphorus insecticide on the phytoplankton, zoo plankton, and insect popula=ions of freshwater ponds. Ecological Monographs. Vo~. 42, No. 3. Inman, R.E., D.J. Sale and B.J. McGurk. 1977. Silvicultural biomass farms. Vol. IV: site specific production studies and cost analyses. Energy Research and Development Administration. Div. 0 Solar Energy. NTIS. MTR-7347. 159 pp.

Joensuu, O.I.



f u e l s as a s o u r c e o f m e r c u r y p o i l u = i o n .


Vol. 172.


Johnson, R.C., R.K. Lay and t.C. Newman. 1980. Energy ~rom biomass: a technology of =erres=rial blomsss sys=ems. Hitre Corp. HcLean VA. MTR-8-OW259, December.

Goiembiewski, M.A. 1980. 5nvlronmen~al assessment o~ a wasCe-co-energy process. Burlington Elec~ric's Wood and Oil Co-fired Boiler. USEPA. Rep. No. EPA-600/7-80-IAS. Karchesy, J. and P. Koch. 1979, Energy producciou from hardwoods growing on southern pine sires. U.S. Dept. of Ag. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. No. SO-24. King, Tony and Sharon Haines. 1979, S o i l compac=ion absent in plan=a=ion = h i n , i n g . S. For. Exp. Sta. Res. No=e. Klopa=ek, Jeffrey, W. Frank Rarrls and Richard J. Olson. 1980. A regional ecologlcal assessmeu~ approach to atmospheric deposition: effects on soll sysEems. X_nn: D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. ~ n d b e r g (eds.). Ann Arbor Science. Lakeland Ledger. 7. p . B - I . 1981, Polk c a ~ l e ranching a i n ' ~ what i~ used to be.


Levi, Michael P. aad Michael J. O'Grady. 1980. Deeisionmakers guide to wood fuel for small industrial energy users, SERI. Feb. Likens, Oene E., S. Herber= Bormann, Noye M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher and Robert S. Pierce. 1970. Effec=s of forest cutting and herbicide ~reatment on nu~rien~ budgets in ~he Hubbard Brook watershed. Ecosystem, Ecological Monographs. &0(I):23-47. Lindberg, eleven E. and' R.P. Hosker. 1980. E f f l u e n t d e l i v e r y and a i r mass/ landscape in~eractions. In: D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond, and S.E. Lindberg ( e d s . ) . Ann Arbor Sc-~ence. Meagher, J.F. 1980. Emisson characteristics and atmospheric ~ransformaCions. In:Atmospherlc SuLfur Decomposition. D.S. Shriuer, C.~. Richmond, and S.'--E. Lindberg (ads.). Ann Arbor Science. Megahan, W.F. 1972. Logging, e r o s i o n , and s e d i m n e t a t i o n - - a r a they d i r t y words? Journal of Forestry. 40:403-407.


Mueller ASSOCiates, Inc. 1981. Alcohols from biomass: state-of-knowledge survey o f environemntal, heal~h and safe~y aspects. Bal~more, ~ . DOE con=racu no. DE-ACO?NglEVI0&50. Nauional Science Foundation. 1981. News release of research results. Published in Env. Sci. and Technology. Newman, L. 1980. Atmospheric oxidation o~ su!Eur dioxides. In:Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition, D.S. Shrlner, C.R. Richmond and S.E. L[---~dberg (eds.) Ann Arbor Science. Nowacki, P. 1980. Health hazards and pollution control in synthetic fuel conversion. Noyes Data Corp. Park Ridge, NJ. 511 pp.

Odum, E.P. 1971. pp. 97-99.

Fundamentals of Ecology.

W.B. Saunders Co.


Office of Technology Assessment. 1980, Energy from Biological Processes. Vol. II-Technical and Environmental Analyses. Congress of ~he United Sta~es, Washington, D.C. Oppelt, Timothy E. 1981. Thermal destruction options for controlling hazardous ~astes. Civil Engineering. September. Paul, J.K. (ed.), 1978. Methanol technology and applicauion in mo~o~ fuel~. Noyes Data Corp. 469 pp. Raphael, M.G. and M. ~ite. in the Sierra Nevada. 1978. Snags, wildlife and fores= management California-Nevada Wildlife. 9:23-41.

Reed, TiB. ( e d . ) . 1981. Biomass gaslfica=ion: principles and ~echno~ogy. Noves Da~a Corp. Park Ridge, NJ. 401 pp. Rice, R.M., etal. an appraisal. 1972. Erosional consequences of ~imber harvesning: 1977. Land suitability Vol. Ill. ..~R'R-7347.
Amer. Water Res. Assoc. Proc., Urbane, ZL.

Salo, D.J., R.E. Inman, B.J. McGurk, and J. Verhoff. and availability. Silvicultural Biomass Farms. McLean, VA. The Mitre Corp.

Schofield, Carl L. 1980. Processes limiting fish populations in acidified lakes. In:Atmospheric Sulgur Deposition. D.S. Shrlner, C.R. Richmond and S.E.-Lindberg (eds.~ Ann Arbor Science.


S6~ubner, J.D. and S.R. Fsk. from "hog-~uel" fly ash.


1978. Lack of mu=agenlcity o~ filtrates ~ Res. Foundation. Seat=le, Wash.

Segelquist, C. and ~[. Rogers. 1975, Use of wildlife forage clearings by white-ta~led deer in the Arkansas Ozarks. Proceedings o~ the Annual Con~erence of the Southeast Association of Game Fish Commission. 28:568-573. Smith, W.H. 1981. Air pollution and forests. Springer-Verlag. New York. U.S.

Stone, E. 1973. The impac= oE timber harvest on soils and water. Dept. of Agri. For. Serv. Washington, D.C.

1979. Nutrient removal by intensive harvest--some research gaps and oppovtunlcies. Proceedings: Empac= of Harvesting on Fores= Nu=rient Cycle. Syracuse, N'Y.

Turner, Ralph R. 1981. Oxide=ion state of arsenic in coal ash lea=hate. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 15, No. 9. Turner, John and Harcia J. Lambert. 1980. Sulfur nutrition of forests. In: Atmospheric Sulfur Deposition. D.S. Shriner, C.R. Richmond and S--?E. Lindberg (eds.j. Ann Arbor Science.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Silviculture activities and non-point pollution abatement: a cost effecuiveness analysis procedure. USDA For. Serv., Washington, D.C. EPA-600/8-77-oIe. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Compilaclon of air pollution emission fat=ors. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. AP-42. 3rd Ed. Research Triangle Park, NC. 19E0. 79-036. Acid rain. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/9-

Waldbo==, G.L. 1978. Health effects of environmental poilu=ants. C.V. Hosby Co. St. Louis.


Wandllck, J.P. 1978. H~a1=h eEfec=a o~ airborne par=cuLaUe mar=or wiuh ~mphasls on Ely ash. An In-house repot= by =he Weyerhauser Company. October. White, E.R. and A.E. Harvey. 1979. Modification of ~n=ensive management practices to protect forest nutrien= cycles. Proceedings: Impact of Harvesting on Fores= Nutiren= Cycle, Syracruse, ~'. Wilson, R., S.D. Colome, J.D. 5penBler and D. Gordon. !980. Health effec=s of ossil fuel burning. Ballinger Publishing. Cambridge, MA. 592 pp. Zinder, S.H. and T.D. Brock. 1978. Microbial transformations of sulfur in =he anvlronmen=. Par~ II. In: J.O. MriaBu (ed.). Ecological Impac=s. Wiley, NY. pp. 445-A46.


Working Document No. 6

The Florida Eucalyptus Energy. Farm Interface with Natural EcoSystems References

Literature Cited A1ich, a. A., R. E. Inman, K. Ernest, C. V. FoJo, R. B. Ingersoll, K. A. Hiller, P. L. Norse, P. S. Omen, H. Rao, F. A. Scllooley, J. 5. Smith, P. D. Stent, and C. T. Warmke. 1976. An evaluaE~on of the use of agricultural residues as an energy feedstock. Vol. I. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California. ~74 pp. Austin, D. F. 197B. Exotic plants and their effects in Southeas:ern Florida. Env. Conserv. 5(I):25-34. Bates, H. 1964. t,lan in nature. 2nd ed. Prentic-Hall, ~lew Jersey. 166 pp.

Bode, H. R. 1958. Beitrage Zur Kenntnis allelopaChischer Erscheinungen bei einigen Juglan daceen. Planta 51:440-480. Costin, A. B. 1961. Forest hydrology of Australian subalpine catchments. [Docum.] 2rid World Eucalyptus Conference, Brazil. CYB. 1977. Canadayear book, 1976-77. Special edition. (B. E. Pearson, ed.) Statistics. Canada, Hinistry of Industry, Trade and Commerce. del {4oral, R., and C. H. Muller. 1969. Fog drip: a mechanism of toxin transport from E u c ~ p ~ gZobuZ,J~. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club g6(4):467-475. 1970. The a!lelopathic effects of Eucc, Zyp.tu~ cam~d-c~i~. Amer. ---'-'Midl. Nat. 83(I).254-282. EOP. 1977. The national energy plan. Executive Office of the President, Energy Policy and Planning. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. 103 pp.

Franklin, E. C. 1978. Exotics for hardwood timber production in the southeastern United StateS. In Proceedings: 2nd Symposium Southeastern Hardwoods, USDAFores~ Servia, Southeast. Area S&PF, Atlanta, Georgia. Franklin, E. C., and G. F. Heskimen. 1973. Genetic improvement of Euc~lupt~ robu~ta Sm. in South Florida. In J. Burley and D. G. Nikles (eds.), Proceedings: Tropical Provenance--and Progeny Research and International Cooperation, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford, Great Britain. Harris, L. D. 1980. Forest and wildlife dynamics in the Southeast. Pages 307-322 In K. Sabol (ed.), Transactions of the Forty-fifth North American ~lildT~fe and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Hanagement i n s t i tute, Washington, D.C. Heth, D., and R. Karschon. 1963. Interception of rainfall by ~uc~ypt~ c ~ m ~ d u . ~ Dehn. Pages 7-12 In Contributions on Eucalypts in Israel, I f . The National and Universit~nsti~ute of Agriculture, Rehovot, 1963 Series No. 623-E. H i l l i s , W. E. 1966. Polyphenols in the leaves of Euc.~{tjpt~ L'Herit: A chemotaonomic survey - I. Phytochemistry 5:1075-1090. 28

Ho~lett, K,, and A. GamAche. 1977. Silvicultural biomass farms: Vol, I f , The biomass potential of short-rotation farms. MITRETech. Rep. No. 7347. 136 pp. Inman, R. E, ~977. Silvicultural Biomass farms: Vol. I. Fech. Rep. No. 7347. 62 pp. Sulm,ary, MITRE

Karschon, R., and O. Heth. 1967. The vlater balance of a plantation of EccZ~t~tu~ c~,c(d~=~sx~ Dehn. Pages 7-33 In Contributions on Eucalypts in Israel, I l l . The National and Uni~-erslty Institute of Agriculture, Rehovot, 1967 Series. Long, R. H. 1974. The vegetation of southern Florida. 37:33-45. Florida Scientist

Mazzotti, F. J., W. Ostrenko, and A. T. Smith, 1981. Effects of the exotic plants lle~eJxc= qu~lqueJte,~.u.Eo, and C ~ u ~ t a zqu, L~z~.6~o&Gzon small mamnal populations in theeastern Florida Everglades. Florida Scientis= 44(2):65-71.
McElveen, D. 1978. The effect of different edge types and habitat sizes on d i s t r i b u t i o n of breeding birds in North Florida. H.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 58 pp.

Meskimen, G. 1971. F e r t i l i z e r tablets stimulate Eu.e.a,~yp,t.~s. in Florida t r i a l . USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-162. 8 pp. M i l l e t t , M. R. O. 1944. Evaporation and rainfall inside and outside a forest. Leafl. For. Timber Bur. Aust. ~o. 57. Moore, W. H., and B. F. Swindel. 1981. Effects of si:e preparation on dry prairie vegetation in South Florida. Southern J. Appl. For. 5(2):89-92. Morgan, J. V. 1963. Occurrence and mechanism of leaching from foliage by aquaeous solution and the nature of the materials leached. B.S..Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Pecoraro, J. H., R. Chase, P. Fairbank, and R. Heister. 1977. The potential of ~aoodas an energy resource in New England. New England Regional Council, Energy Resource Development Task Force, Wood Utilization Group. Pimentel, D., S. Chick, and W. Vergara. 1979. Energy from forests: Environmental ~nd w i l d l i f e implications. Pages 66-79 In K. Sabol (ed.) Transactions of ~h~.Forty-fourth North American Wildl-~fe and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Ripiey, S. D. 1975. Report on endangered and threatened plant species of the United States. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.: House Document No. 94-51. 200 pp. Saxena, S., and J. S. Singh. 1978. Influence of leaf leachate from E~CL~Vpg~Obu~ Labill and A~cu~u~ i~toD~cc Colebr. on the growth of ~6gstc ~/~iaJ:~ (L.) Wilczek and to&/zu, peu~z~tc L. Indian J. Ecol. 5(2):148158. 29

Tukey, H. B., Jr. 1966. Leaching of metabolities From above grou~Id plant parts and its implications. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 93:385-301. Tukey, H. B., Jr. 1970. The leaching of substances from planks. Pl. Physiol. 21:305-324. Ann. Rev.

Tukey, H. B., J r . , and J, V. Horgan. 1964. The occurrence of leaching frot~ above ground plant parts and the nature of the materia] leached. Proc. XVI Internatl. dort. Congr. 4:146-153. Tyndale-Biscoe, C. H., and J. H. Calaby. 1975. Eucalypt forests as a refuge for w i l d l i f e . Aust. For. 38(2):117-t33. USBC. 1977. Statistical abstract of the United States, !977. 98th ed., U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service. 1978. Forest s t a t i s t i c s of the United States, 1977. Review draft. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. 133 pp. Wesley, D. E., C. J. Perkins, and A. D. Sullivan. For. 5(I):37-41. igsI. Southern J. Appl.

Whittaker, R. H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant cDn~nunities. Science 147:250-260. Yardeni, D., and M. Evanari. 1952. The germination inhibiting, growth inhibiting and phytocidal effects of certain leaves and leaf extracts. Phyton 2:1!-16. Zon, R., and J. M. Briscoe. vice Bull. 87. 47 pp. 1 9 ! 1 . Eucalypts in Florida. USDAForest Ser-


~rk/ng Document No. 9 The Florida Eucalyptus ~hergy Farm and ~thanol Pefinery - The Economic Analysis References



LAlcohol Week, "Alcohol Week Price Watch," April 19, 1982. Bentz, E. J., et el., Factors that Affect the U.S. Market Demand and Ut/lizati~-- o-~ M e t h a n o l - F r ~ , Within the TransDor-~tion Secticn, 1980-2000, Bentz and Associates, Inc., Springf~'eld, VA, C~tober 1980, h~IS, PB-81-156457. Bentz, E. J., et al., Pe~zlatorv Factors Affectinc the Demand for ar~ the Supplv--~f-['~uelsFor Tra~portation, NTIS, [979. Buck/ngham, P.A., et al., Ccal-tonvethancl: An En~ineerinu Evaluation of Texaco Gas-['f~ticn" and ICI LVethanol-Svnthesis Rcune, Flour Engineers and Consr-~/c--~ors, Inc., irvine, CA, August 1981, pp. 126, NTIS, EPRI-AP-1962. Ch~aical and ~hair~=ering News, "Global ~thanol Market to Double in 1980s," ~ril 7, 1980, pp. 16. Chemical and Eh~ineerin~ ~kL=ws, "~thanol Bocm Will P~quire New Technology," Cctcber 5, 1981, pp. 32-33. C h ~ c a l and ~'aneerinq N~s, "Steady Growth Ahead for Methanol in Europe," November 17, 1980, pp. 30-31. ~amical Week, "Alcohol Fuels? Jtlne 24, 1981, pp. 52-58. ELhanol's C~od, ~tD~nol's Better," March 18, 1981,

~nzical Wezk, "A New Strong Pitch for Synfuels," pp, 16 'i7.

Ch~nical We~k, "Octane Bcosters :'~el M~hanol Demand," Januar! i4, ISSI, pp. 24-25. CD~istry and Incku~c.--f, "Methanol Production Set for Massi~ Increase, :' Septant~_r 5, 1981, pp. 580. Collieries Manage~_nt Corporation, Methlv Alcohol Fuel SU~DIv and Demand 19~0-2000, Philadelphia, PA, March 1980, NTIS, R5-81"-176513. Encyclccedia of Chemical Technolc~7, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981, Vo[. 15, pp. 409/4~3. Jones, J. I., et al., Cc~r~-aT/ve Eccncnlic Analysis of Alcohol Fuels ~cticn O~tions,' ~esented at The International Symgosium on Alcohol F~als Technology, A s ~ , CA, May 28, 1979, CCNF-790520, pp. iI. 37. l-II.37.12.



S. M., Product/on of Methanol from Wood, presented at The International S ~ o s i u m on Aico~ml--~is Technology, Asil~ar, CA, May 28, 1979, CC~F-790520, pp. II.41.l-II.41.12.

Layman, Patricia L., "Big-Voltm~ Chemicals' O~tput Fell A~ain in '81," Chemical and ~gineering News, May 3, 1982, pp. i0-Ii. National Transportation Policy Externalities, NTIS, 1979. Study Cc~ssion, Tran~rtation

Oil and Gas Journal, "Concco Testing Methanol as Autcmotive Fuel," December 28, 1981, pp. 70. 0il and Gas Journal, "Methanol Supply Squeeze Seen in Early 1980s," May 21, 1979, pp. 42. Oil and C~Is Journal, "World 5, 1979, pp. 51. Surplus of Methanol Seen by 1985,"

Oscarsson, B:' and Shiffe_~-dktiebolag, R., Alternative Fuels: Metb.~nol Prco~ction in Sweden with Aim, Sb/les as Feed-S~ocks, rcm Syn~osi~n on A~txm~tiv~ Propulsion S y ~ , ~ , MI, April 14, 1980, ~ 8 0 0 4 1 9 , Vol. 2, pp. 919-930. Paul, Jay K., ed., Methanol Technoloq? and Application in Motor Fuels, Park Ridge, NJ, ~ y e s Data Corporation, 1978. Staggers, Harley 0., Alternative Fuels and Compatible Engine Designs, U.S. Govemmrent Pr/nting O~fice, Washington, DC, 1981, Serial No. 96-237. U.S. D e ~ t of Energy, ~e.rgy Infolm~ticn Administration, Annual Pepo. to Congress, Vol. 3, February, 1982. r~ 1981

U.S. O e ~ % of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Producer Price Indexes," Methanol: No. 0614-0363, 1976-1980. Wan, E. I., et al., Technical EconQnic Asses~rent of the Production of M e t / m n o l - - ~ Bicmas&, Executive Summary, Science ~pl/cations, Inc., Mclean, VA, July 12, 1979, NTIS, D~'~-3002-TI (Vol. i). Wan, E.I., et al., Enoncmic Evaluation of Indirect Bic~ass Liauefaction

P r ~ e s ~ T o r Produ~.i~ of M e ~ l
ticks Inc., ~ , VA., 1982.

and ~sollne, ScienceApplica-

Weismantel, Guy E., "Methanol Supplies: Too ~%ch or Too Little?" C~emical engineering, July 14, 1980, pp. 75-78. ~am, R. M~, and Forester, P. C., Available Technology for Indirect Conversicn of Coal to Methanol and Gaso/Am~, Oak Ridge National Lab, TNt 1980, NTIS, CC~F-801210-10.

h~am, R. M., et al., Indirect Ccnversicn of Coal to ~=thanol and Gasoline: P ~ Price vs. Produc~ Sl/te, from International Coal

t~r ~t t l
t aw~


Utilization Exh/biticn and Ccnference, 1980, CCNF-801142.

Houston, TX, No~_~ber 18,

~hite, Thcmas L., "Alcohol as a Fuel for t.he A u t ~ b i l c Motor," Transactions, Society. of .~/tmmotiv~ Eng/, !907, pp. 27-47.