The relative cost of biomass energy transport
- 633 Downloads
Logistics cost, the cost of moving feedstock or products, is a key component of the overall cost of recovering energy from biomass. In this study, we calculate for small- and large-project sizes, the relative cost of transportation by truck, rail, ship, and pipeline for three biomass feedstocks, by truck and pipeline for ethanol, and by transmission line for electrical power. Distance fixed costs (loading and unloading) and distance variable costs (transport, including power losses during transmission), are calculated for each biomass type and mode of transportation. Costs are normalized to a common basis of a giga Joules of biomass. The relative cost of moving products vs feedstock is an approximate measure of the incentive for location of biomass processing at the source of biomass, rather than at the point of ultimate consumption of produced energy. In general, the cost of transporting biomass is more than the cost of transporting its energy products. The gap in cost for transporting biomass vs power is significantly higher than the incremental cost of building and operating a power plant remote from a transmission grid. The cost of power transmission and ethanol transport by pipeline is highly dependent on scale of project. Transport of ethanol by truck has a lower cost than by pipeline up to capacities of 1800 t/d. The high cost of transshipment to a ship precludes shipping from being an economical mode of transport for distances less than 800 km (woodchips) and 1500 km (baled agricultural residues).
Index EntriesBiomass transportation ethanol transport pipeline transport power transmission rail transport ship transport transportation cost truck transport
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Flynn, P. and Kumar, A. (2005), Trip Report, Pietarsaari, Finland. University of Alberta, Canada (May 1, 2006). www.biocap.ca/files/reports.Google Scholar
- 5.Aden, A., Ruth, M., Ibsen, K. Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizzing co-carrent diulte acid prehydrolsis for corn stoner, TP-5-32438 (2002), National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.Google Scholar
- 6.Wooley, R., Ruth, M., Sheehan, J., and Ibsen, K. (1999), Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-corrent dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis—current and futuristic scenarios, TP-580-26157. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.Google Scholar
- 9.Taylor, J. (2002), Regional Manager of Gibson’s Trucking Company, Alberta, Canada, personal communication.Google Scholar
- 10.Williams, D. (2002), Chief Estimator for Bantrel Corporation (an affiliate of Bechtel), Edmonton, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, personal communication.Google Scholar
- 11.Ghafoori, E. and Feddes, J. (2005), Pipeline vs beef transport of beef cattle manure. ASAE Pacific Northwest Section Meeting Presentation, PNW05-1012, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
- 13.Cameron, J., Kumar, A., and Flynn, P. (2004), ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, PN 048039, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
- 14.Van den Broek, R., Faaij, A., and Van Wijk, A. (1995), Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 15.Mailey, S. (2006), Transmission information engineer, Manitoba Hydro, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, personal communication.Google Scholar