Exploring the potential of Eucalyptus for energy production in the Southern United States: Financial analysis of delivered biomass. Part I

被引:66
|
作者
Gonzalez, R. [1 ]
Treasure, T. [1 ]
Wright, J. [1 ]
Saloni, D. [1 ]
Phillips, R. [1 ]
Abt, R. [2 ]
Jameel, H. [1 ]
机构
[1] N Carolina State Univ, Dept Wood & Paper Sci, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[2] N Carolina State Univ, Dept Forestry, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
来源
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY | 2011年 / 35卷 / 02期
关键词
Eucalyptus; Plantation; Biomass; Bioenergy; Carbohydrate; Delivered cost; SWITCHGRASS; ETHANOL; HAWAII; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.10.011
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Eucalyptus plantations in the Southern United States offer a viable feedstock for renewable bioenergy. Delivered cost of eucalypt biomass to a bioenergy facility was simulated in order to understand how key variables affect biomass delivered cost. Three production rates (16.8, 22.4 and 28.0 Mg ha(-1) y(-1), dry weight basis) in two investment scenarios were compared in terms of financial analysis, to evaluate the effect of productivity and land investment on the financial indicators of the project. Delivered cost of biomass was simulated to range from $55.1 to $66.1 per delivered Mg (with freight distance of 48.3 km from plantation to biorefinery) depending on site productivity (without considering land investment) at 6% IRK When land investment was included in the analysis, delivered biomass cost increased to range from $65.0 to $79.4 per delivered Mg depending on site productivity at 6% IRR. Conversion into cellulosic ethanol might be promising with biomass delivered cost lower than $66 Mg(-1). These delivered costs and investment analysis show that Eucalyptus plantations are a potential biomass source for bioenergy production for Southern U.S. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:755 / 766
页数:12
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] BIOMASS TO ENERGY IN THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES: SUPPLY CHAIN AND DELIVERED COST
    Gonzalez, Ronalds
    Phillips, Richard
    Saloni, Daniel
    Jameel, Hasan
    Abt, Robert
    Pirraglia, Adrian
    Wright, Jeff
    BIORESOURCES, 2011, 6 (03): : 2954 - 2976
  • [2] The Biomass Potential of Turkey for Energy Production: Part I
    Saracoglu, N.
    ENERGY SOURCES PART B-ECONOMICS PLANNING AND POLICY, 2010, 5 (03): : 272 - 278
  • [3] BIOMASS ENERGY POTENTIAL FROM LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY WASTES IN THE SOUTHERN UNITED-STATES
    JONES, HB
    OGDEN, EA
    BIOMASS, 1984, 6 (1-2): : 25 - 35
  • [4] An analysis of the feasibility for increasing woody biomass production from pine plantations in the southern United States
    Munsell, John F.
    Fox, Thomas R.
    BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2010, 34 (12): : 1631 - 1642
  • [5] Biomass production of herbaceous energy crops in the United States: field trial results and yield potential maps from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership
    Lee, Do Kyoung
    Aberle, Ezra
    Anderson, Eric K.
    Anderson, William
    Baldwin, Brian S.
    Baltensperger, David
    Barrett, Michael
    Blumenthal, Jurg
    Bonos, Stacy
    Bouton, Joe
    Bransby, David I.
    Brummer, Charlie
    Burks, Pane S.
    Chen, Chengci
    Daly, Christopher
    Egenolf, Josh
    Farris, Rodney L.
    Fike, John H.
    Gaussoin, Roch
    Gill, John R.
    Gravois, Kenneth
    Halbleib, Michael D.
    Hale, Anna
    Hanna, Wayne
    Harmoney, Keith
    Heaton, Emily A.
    Heiniger, Ron W.
    Hoffman, Lindsey
    Hong, Chang O.
    Kakani, Gopal
    Kallenbach, Robert
    Macoon, Bisoondat
    Medley, James C.
    Missaoui, Ali
    Mitchell, Robert
    Moore, Ken J.
    Morrison, Jesse I.
    Odvody, Gary N.
    Richwine, Jonathan D.
    Ogoshi, Richard
    Parrish, Jimmy Ray
    Quinn, Lauren
    Richard, Ed
    Rooney, William L.
    Rushing, J. Brett
    Schnell, Ronnie
    Sousek, Matt
    Staggenborg, Scott A.
    Tew, Thomas
    Uehara, Goro
    GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2018, 10 (10): : 698 - 716