mark ryans opportunities and challenges in biomass harvesting

www.fpinnovations.ca

Opportunities and challenges to biomass harvesting in Canada:An operational perspective

Mark Ryans, R.P.F.

FPInnovations - FericBlandin Foundation – OMNR Tour

May 15 2008Thunder Bay, ON

Outline

• What is FPInnovations?• Drivers for bioenergy• Biomass harvest/recovery methods

– Harvesting systems determine biomass opportunities– Key cost considerations

• Biomass volumes after harvesting• Summary

FERIC

FORIN

TEK

PAPR

ICA

N

FIB

RE

CEN

TRE

Toward an Integrated Innovation System

April 1, 2007

Federal GovernmentFederal Government

Industry – 400+ CompaniesIndustry – 400+ CompaniesProvincial GovernmentsProvincial GovernmentsShared Priorities, Shared Risks,Shared Priorities, Shared Risks,

Shared Benefits, and Shared CostsShared Benefits, and Shared Costs

FPInnovations Partnership

British ColumbiaAlbertaSaskatchewanManitoba OntarioQuébecNew BrunswickNova ScotiaNewfoundland &LabradorNorthwest TerritoriesYukon

Future Industry

Sustainable Forests

Commodity Wood Products

Commodity Pulps & Papers

Engineered Composites & SystemsSustainable Construction

Appearance Products

Value Added Pulps & Papers

‘Bioproducts’&Bioenergy

Now:

Future:

Market Value & ROI decreasing

Bolt-on PlantCo-products

FPInnovations Business Model

• Addresses Sector’s Value Chain

• Built on Partnerships

• Emphasis on Sector Transformation

• Focus on an Emerging Bioeconomy

Four Flagship Innovation Programs

Value Chain Optimization

Next GenerationBuilding and

Living Solutions

Next Generation Pulps & Papers

Bioenergy, Chemicals &

Advanced Bioproducts

Interest in forest feedstocks and bioenergy

Drivers: high energy costs (fossil

fuels and electricity), global warming issues

(carbon credits?) tight hog fuel supply, provincial government

programs to encourage better use of residues and under-utilized species

survival of the industry and northern communities

long-term potential of wood-to-liquid fuel conversion processes, pellets, etc.

Bioenergy is not new to Canadian forest operations

Traditional use of hog fuel and black liquor

Simple supply-chain infrastructure from source (sawmill) to CHP facility

Biomass harvesting operations currently providing feedstock for burning

Burning questions concerning forest feedstocks

• How much is available? – What is the sustainable supply? – To which businesses?

• How much does it cost?• What harvest and recovery systems are

available?• How can biomass quality be improved to suit

current and future uses?

Program Themes 2006-2010

Current uses

CHP at pulp and paper mill

Independent power producer

Pellets

Forest biomass sources

Harvest residues*

Under-utilized standing trees*

Sortyard/chipping terminal debris*

Early thinnings and “fire-smart” treatments

Non-commercial stands

Burnt and insect-killed stems (MPB)

Stumpwood

Energy plantations

*operational in Canada

Residues from different harvest systems:- Biomass types and location

• Harvest residues:– Roadside-stroke delimber (full-

tree)– Landing-DDC (full-tree)– In cutover – harvester (cut-to-

length)

The Nordic way

• Cut-to-length harvesting systems• Private land with small operating blocks (2

– 5 ha)• Three sources of biomass from the forest:

– Recovery of harvest residues within the cutover– Use of stumps– Harvest of small trees

The Nordic way

Key elements to their success:• National policy to promote forest biomass use• Concerted R&D programs • Biomass recovery and harvest systems

tailored to their resources and wood harvest systems

• Modernized CHP plants to optimize use of forest residues

• Guidelines/best practices are in place

CTL residue recovery systems

Cut-to-length harvesting: recovery of debris within the cutover• Bundling or forwarding loose debris

with roadside chipping

CTL systems: Residue bundlers/compactors

Continuous Batch

Compactor – Container system

CTL systems and Nordic practice:- mills tailored for biomass deliveries

Just in time deliveries, covered storage and conveyors Scaling, receiving and feedstock monitoring Large central crusher driven by an electric motor

Source: Hakkila, P. 2004. Tekes, Technology Program Report

6/2004.

Canadian residue recovery systems:- full-tree harvesting systems dominate

Delimber-debarker-chipper (DDC)

- white-wood chips to pulp mill

Stroke delimber or roadside processor

- tree lengths to sawmill

Recovery of roadside residues

Stroke delimber Delimber-debarker-chipper

Full-tree harvest residues:Low-hanging fruit?

• Already at roadside or landing• Paid for (?); spending money to get

rid of it• Location and condition of road• Level of contamination and moisture

content• Integration between conventional

harvest and residue recovery– Currently treated as waste

Key Cost Considerations:- feedstock cost is a key to competitiveness

• Delivered wood cost to mill is the single largest component of final product cost (40 to 60%)

• The delivered costs of forest-origin residues could be higher

Cost factors:- high transportation costs

• A Basic Problem: • Transporting a low-value, low bulk-density material with a high

moisture content over a long distance– Importance of maximizing payload through comminution and compaction

Photo Credit: Holman - John Deere (FERIC Winning Solutions 2006)

Delivered costs: – Eastern Canada, residues from roadside stroke-delimber

Pre-pilingComminution

Transport: - 120 km one-way, live-floor chip van

Other: - roads, supervision, overhead, maintenance, compliance, stumpage

*Cost estimates: FERIC BiOS model

Key Cost Considerations: - high transportation costs

• It may be more cost effective to convert the feedstock in the field and transport a denser fuel– Mobile/portable biorefinery or pellet plant

Advanced Biorefinery Inc.

Cost factors:- high comminution costs

High capital cost: $400 000 to $500 000 chipper ; $500 000 to $850 000 grinder with separate loader

Sensitive to contamination, truck scheduling and residue concentration

Low utilization, high fuel consumption Not designed for working at roadside

Disc chippers

Clean, well-prepared hardwood tops

Drum chippers

Truck or trailer-mounted versions

Larger infeed deck and opening Less sensitive to contaminants

than a disc chipper Potential use in hardwood and

softwood residues

Horizontal grinders

Trailer- and track-mounted models 450 – 735 kW recommended High fuel consumption Can handle various feedstocks

Biomass harvest and recovery systems

• Recovery systems for roadside debris

– Tracked and trailer-mounted horizontal grinders

– Hot system vs. cold-decked

Cost factors:- integration within existing management and harvesting operations

• Conventional harvest affects the cost and quality of the residue recovery operation– Concentrated vs. scattered debris, contaminates, roads and snow removal,

etc.

Cost and quality factors: - moisture content

• For CHP and most thermochemical processes, low moisture content is a major consideration

Firing Efficiency - Gas @ 300 F

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80

Moisture Content (%)

Effic

iency (%

)

Summer

Winter

Residue volumes after recovery - biomass flow

Merchantable (logging) Potentially available

Total biomass

Roadside slash Standing residuals Cutover slash

Silvicultural and ecological retention

Technical usability

Harvestable biomass

Forest-origin biomass sources- potential vs. recoverable volumes

Potentially Available

Technically Usable

Total Biomass

Economically Viable ?

Biomass yield varies by species

Single tree biomass: Black Spruce vs. Jack Pine (DBH: 26 cm, Ht: 18 m)

Ontario FRI: Sb90 Pj10 vs. Pj90 Sb10 (Site Class 2, 90% stocking, 100 yr)

17.5 ODT/ha* 7.7 ODT/ha*

Recoverable volume FERIC BiOS model

•Needles•37

•13%•Live Branches

•16•6%

•Stem Bark•21•8%

•Stem Wood•202•73%

•Dry Wt: 276 kg•Stem Bark

•15•6%

•Needles•13

•6%•Live Branches•10•4%

•Stem Wood•193•84%

•Dry Wt: 231 kg

Biomass recovery on full-tree site, Kapuskasing, ON Black spruce stand

Potentially available50.5 odt

Roadside slash32.6 odt

Standing residuals2.5 odt

Cutover slash15.5 odt

Recovered biomass25.2 odt

Biomass recovery on full-tree site, Kapuskasing, ONMixedwood stand (low hardwood utilization)

Potentially available131.0 ODt

Roadside slash40.5 ODt

Standing residuals47.8 ODt

Cutover slash42.7 ODt

Recovered biomass31.9 ODt

Future outlook: Greater need for forest-origin feedstocks

Wood chips

Chemicals

Sawmill residuals

Pulp

Emissions

Landfill solid waste

Effluent

Forest residues Fuels

Chemicals

Power

Pulp mill to forest biorefinery (Paprican Division)

Wood-to-liquid fuel/wood-to-power and heat processes become commercial reality

Other factors

• State of the industry and availability of capital• Wood-to-liquid fuel processes are still years

away• Current low value of forest residues that have

a low bulk density and high moisture content resulting in high delivered feedstock costs

• Capital costs for a small contractor to get into the business are very high– 50000 ODt contract requires over $2 million in capital costs

and another $2 million in operating costs– Sustain or create 11-12 jobs

Summary and opportunities

Bioproduct opportunities based on forest feedstocks will revolutionize the way we view and manage the forest– A new product stream from our woodlands

operations (reduced cost of all feedstocks)– Biomass harvesting can lead to actual

increases in current merchantable volumes– Silvicultural improvements through biomass

recovery can lead to a more valuable forest– Sustainable levels must be established

Summary and opportunities

Lots of biomass around but economically- viable volumes need to be established

Bioenergy/bioproduct opportunities will make us rethink our traditional approaches to harvesting

Biomass harvesting will create/sustain woodlands jobs

www.fpinnovations.ca

Questions?