Economic feasibility of forest biomass feedstock supply chains: clean and dirty chips for bioenergy applications

Abstract

There is a lack of economic feasibility analyses on the harvesting of forest biomass to supply low-carbon bioenergy feedstocks using actual data on the mixed product harvest in the hardwood region of the northeast USA. This study is a techno-economic analysis of three different scenarios (clean chips, dirty chips, or pulpwood) based on data collected from wholetree harvesting systems over 6 years. Each scenario had two different cases: one with costs and revenues allocated by mass (allocated system), and the other without allocation (whole system). The six cases of three scenarios tested resulted in a wide range of positive net present values (NPVs) from $1 713 000 to $819 in US dollars. Clean chip production generated substantial NPVs and dirty chips generated marginal NPVs. The minimum selling prices (MSPs) of clean chips from two cases were similar, $45.92 and $45.55 per green metric ton (Mg), with maximum hauling distances (MHDs) of 247 and 250 km (km). The MSPs for dirty chips from four cases ranged from $34.38 to $37.47 per Mg with the range of MHDs from 184 to 351 km. MSP and sensitivity analyses suggest that the selling prices and harvesting production levels of clean chips and dirty chips, and purchase prices of forestry logging equipment are the key factors that most influence the profitability of the regional forest biomass feedstock supply chain.

Projecting investment potential of an emerging forest bioeconomy market: An EU—Australian benchmarking study

“…Despite rising interest, bioenergy is not a mature market in Australia, and biomass supply costs remain vague, particularly compared to the EU. The development of a forest‐based bioenergy market in Australia will depend on financial viability and long‐term sustainability (Ha et al., 2021; White et al., 2013), and much can be learned from the bioenergy journey of the EU.…”

“…In a US study, a surveying method was employed to investigate capacity and demand limiting factors of utilizing additional logging residues for energy, but the study's scope was limited to investments by the milling industry (Pokharel et al., 2017). Another US study considered forest residue bioenergy from a profitability and investment returns perspective using a techno‐economic analysis (Ha et al., 2021). Costs to supply road‐side residues from managed forests to bioenergy plants in Canada were assessed by Yemshanov et al.…”

Impacts of harvesting practices on nutrient balances of forests under high nitrogen deposition

“…When harvesting, the removed or exported tree parts may include only the stem (stem only harvest: SOH), both the stem and the crown (whole tree harvest: WTH), or only the stem without bark in case the bark is stripped in the forest (stem wood harvest: SWH). The most traditional harvest method is SOH, although there is recently increased interest in WTH due to growing demands for renewable energy (Levin and Eriksson, 2010;Briedis et al, 2011;Egnell et al, 2011;Berger et al, 2013;Ha et al, 2022). However, the sustainability of WTH is often debated because of the high nutrient exports (Walmsley et al, 2009;Thiffault et al, 2011;Palviainen and Finer, 2012;Pare and Thiffault, 2016;Zetterberg et al, 2016).…”