Processing and sorting forest residues: Cost,productivity and managerial impacts |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA;2. Department of Forestry and Wildland Resources, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, USA;1. The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Institute of Agriculture, The University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996-4518, United States;2. Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacifico, Av Salaverry 2020, Jesús María, Lima 11, Peru;3. The Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, Institute of Agriculture, The University of Tennessee, 274 Ellington, Knoxville, TN 37996-4563, United States;1. Department of Wood Science, University of British Columbia, 2943-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada;2. Department of Wood Science, University of British Columbia, 2931-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada;3. Alex Fraser Research Forest at The University of British Columbia, 72 South 7th Avenue, Williams Lake, BC V2G 4N5, Canada;1. Composite Materials & Engineering Center, Washington State University, P.O. Box 645815, Pullman, WA 99164, USA;2. Department of Natural Resources and Society, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, ID 83844, USA;3. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT 59812, USA;1. E.T.S.I. Montes, Technical University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain;2. E.U.I.T. Forestal, Technical University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain;1. Industrial Engineering Research Group, Department of Wood Science, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4;2. Value Maximization and Decision Support, FPInnovations, 2601 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4 |
| |
| Abstract: | Feedstocks generated from processing forest residues have traditionally been considered as a low value product. The economic potential of these materials can be enhanced by emerging biomass conversion technologies, such as torrefaction, briquetting, and gasification; however, these systems require higher quality feedstock. The objective of this study was to determine the cost of processing and sorting forest residues to produce feedstock, so that the best comminution machines (i.e. chipper vs. grinder) could be used to better control feedstock size distribution. The tree tops left from sawlog processing and small-diameter trees were delimbed and separated from the slash pile. Three harvest units were selected and each unit was divided into three sub-treatment units (no-, moderate, and intensive sorting). Results showed that the cost of operations were higher for the sorted sub-units when compared to the non-sorted. The total cost of operation (felling to loading) for sawlogs was lowest at 40.81 $ m?3 in the nosorting treatment unit, followed by moderate (42.25 $ m?3) and intensive treatment unit (44.75 $ m?3). For biomass harvesting, the cost of operation (felling to delimbing and sorting) ranged from 27 to 29 $ oven dry metric ton?1. The most expensive operational phase was primary transportation; therefore, cost of treating the forest residues had less impact on the overall cost. The cost increase (1150 $ ha?1) of sorting forest residues could offset cost savings from avoided site preparation expenses (1100 $ ha?1), provided that the forest residues were utilized. |
| |
| Keywords: | Integrated harvesting methods Northern California Shovel logging Standardized comparison Timber harvesting Wood biomass |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
