BP Birrell

Biomass Harvesting, Transportation and Logistics: 

Biomass Harvesting, Transportation and Logistics Stuart Birrell Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University Funding Support U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture Deere and Company

Slide2: 

Economical Biorefinery Capacity for 2000 ton/day Delivery cost $ 35 / dry ton Production Area and Storage Capacity Required 6950 square miles, Mean Travel Distance 40 miles (Perlack and Turhollow, 2002) 30% Corn acreage, 50% farmer participation Storage Capacity (300 days) 1,200 million lbs, 109m cubic feet (Density 11 lbs/cubic feet) 2500 acre.ft (100 acres by 25 ft high) Transportation Bio-refinery delivery 53 ft truck, 50,000lb Tare (Assuming weight limited truck) 80 trucks per day (year round delivery) 320 trucks per day (3 month harvest/delivery window) Field Harvest Transportation 3 ton/acre, 8 acres/hr, 10 hours day. 10 truck loads day (assuming weight limit, i.e. 11-14 lbs/cubic foot) 40 truck loads day (raw density 3-4 lbs/cubic foot) Biorefinery Capacity

Slide3: 

Stover Harvest Systems: Conventional, multi-pass forage harvest systems Conventional Forage Harvesters or balers Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System low-cost whole plant harvester that can be used independent of a combine. Single Pass Harvesting, Dual Stream Harvesting System Based on conventional harvester with two harvest streams, Grain and Biomass Harvesting Systems:

Slide4: 

System Advantages: Producer Machinery Cost Less Overall Complexity Tractor Mounted or Pull-type Field Unit Densification, Transportation and Logistics Single combined stream of higher density (6-8 lb/ft3). Single set of equipment required to transport material which simplifies logistics Could reduce harvest costs Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System: Modified Claas Corn Head low-cost whole plant harvester combine stream with ear and chopped stover

Slide5: 

System Disadvantages: Specialized Biomass Harvest Equipment capital costs are not spread. Grain Quality and Accountability Grain quality, grain drying and grain loss Departure from the conventional corn harvesting and marketing system. Loss of control of grain ownership and marketing. Equipment for separation and processing Additional stationary threshing and separation equipment Extremely high capacity required at facilities Storage of combined stream may be difficult Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System: Modified Claas Corn Head low-cost whole plant harvester combine stream with ear and chopped stover

Slide6: 

System Advantages: Producer Machinery Cost Utilizes multi-use conventional harvest machinery Capital costs of machinery spread over different crops and production enterprises Grain Quality and Marketing Conventional Grain harvesting and threshing in the field. No stationary threshing capacity required at facilities. Producer control of ownership and marketing of the grain Ability to market two products independently. Single Pass, Dual Stream Harvesting System: Based on Conventional Combine Two harvest streams, threshed grain chopped corn stover.

Slide7: 

System Disadvantages: Producer Machinery Cost High cost combine harvester. Densification, Transportation and Logistics Two different harvest streams, Dual logistical and transportation systems Very low density stover stream (3-4 lb/ft3) Transportation is volume limited increasing costs Single Pass, Dual Stream Harvesting System: Based on Conventional Combine Two harvest streams, threshed grain chopped corn stover

Slide8: 

Develop single pass grain/stover harvesting system Multi-pass conventional forage harvest systems already developed but has contamination issues Present Prototype Development: Stover flow Header→Combine→Chopper→Blower/Thrower→ Wagon Header Improvement Material feeding Rear chopper design Consistently size material to 2 inches or less Compare shear cutting to flail cutting Limited interference with standard grain harvest Simple conversion from grain/stover to grain only harvest

Slide9: 

Development and evaluation of two chopper designs Evaluate different headers designs Performance evaluation of Chopper designs Field capacity Impact Chopper, 3-4 mph Shear Chopper, 1-2 mph Particle size reduction Impact Chopper, size reduction more variable Shear Chopper, stalks & cobs to 2”, husks less success Power consumption Impact Chopper, higher power demand Shear Chopper, lower power demand Performance evaluation of conventional and row crop headers Field capacity Conventional, 3.5-4.5 mph with 12 row head Prototype row crop header, 2.5 mph with 6 row head Percent stover removal Conventional head, approx 25-30 of 100% stover removal Prototype row crop header, approx 3 ton dry matter oer acre at 100% removal Identification of machine productivity limiting factors Conventional Header No loss in harvest capacity, limited stover removal Row Crop Header Limits at about 2.5 mph, Chopper Design Impact Chopper maintains harvest capacity Machinery Development Research Summary:

Slide10: 

Model Assumption: Base case 1000 acres 150 bushel/acre corn 4 ton/acre stover yield: Total number of trucks Weight limited capacity (11 lb/ft3) Volume limited (lower bulk density) Single Pass Combined Stream Harvesting Systems 500 truck loads. Single Pass, Dual Stream Harvesting Systems (grain, stover) 750 truck loads. Comparison of Transportation Logistics: Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System versus Single Pass, Dual Stream Harvesting

Slide11: 

Evaluate and Compare Harvest Systems Single Pass, Combine Stream Single Pass, Dual Stream With/Without Onboard Storage Transportation systems Tractor Based Semi-truck Review in Terms of Net Profit Whole Crop Basis Account for Timeliness Costs Economic Analysis of Stover Harvest Systems:

Slide12: 

Economic Model: Selected Cost Parameters

Slide13: 

Economic Model: Selected Harvest Parameters

Slide14: 

Economic Model Results

Slide15: 

Economic Model Results

Slide16: 

Comparative Costs ($/dry ton) at 5 miles Single pass $10 to $16 per ton, Baling $9.3 to $18 per ton 11 mile Shipping Distance Increase in net returns over grain only 25 mile Shipping Distance All stover harvest systems lower net returns than grain only 30 mile Shipping Distance Not Feasible All stover harvest systems have net loss 10 Operators Economic Model Conclusions

Slide17: 

Objectives: Four different harvest systems Conventional Harvest Top 50% Removal Bottom 50% Removal 100% Removal Evaluation of plant nutrients removal and the potential impact soil quality indicators potential ethanol production from the various stover fractions. Field Tests of Four Stover Harvest Scenarios Project Collaborators: Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls ID; USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames IA, Iowa State University, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Ames, IA, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit, Lincoln, NE

Slide18: 

Grain and Stover Yields for four Harvest Scenarios Project Collaborators: Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls ID; USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames IA, Iowa State University, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Ames, IA, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit, Lincoln, NE

Slide19: 

Conclusions: (The preliminary results) harvesting at the normal height would probably provide best system Harvesting the lower portion of the stalk is not recommended little dry matter, slow harvest efficiency, increase nutrient replacement costs, decrease surface cover and erosion protection Harvesting the bottom portion of the stalks would also produce a inferior feedstock excessive water content increased transportation and storage costs minimal improvement on ethanol yield, soil contamination may cause problems in the biorefinery. Field Tests of Four Stover Harvest Scenarios Project Collaborators: Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls ID; USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames IA, Iowa State University, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Ames, IA, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit, Lincoln, NE

Slide20: 

Spring Soil Image Conventional Harvest Top 50% Removal Bottom 50% Removal 100% Removal Soil Image of Four Stover Harvest Scenarios