BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 989–1001 | Cite as

Delivered Biomass Costs of Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) for Bioenergy Uses in the South Central USA

  • Seong C. Park
  • R. James Ansley
  • Mustafa Mirik
  • Marc A. Maindrault
Article

Abstract

Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr.), a multistemmed tree that grows on grasslands and rangelands in the South Central USA (Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico), may have potential as a bioenergy feedstock due to a large amount of existing standing biomass and significant regrowth potential following initial harvest. The objective of this research was to determine the cost to harvest, store, and deliver mesquite biomass feedstock to a bioelectricity plant under the assumption that the rights to harvest mesquite could be acquired in long-term leases. The advantage of mesquite and similar rangeland shrubs as bioenergy feedstocks is that they do not grow on land better suited for growing food or fiber and thus will not impact agricultural food markets as corn grain ethanol has done. In addition, there are no cultivation costs. Results indicated that mesquite biomass density (Mg ha−1) and harvesting costs are major factors affecting cost of delivered biomass. Annual biomass consumption by the bioelectricity plant and percent of the total system area that contains biomass density that is suitable for harvest significantly affected land- related factors including total system area needed per bioelectricity plant and transport costs. Simulation results based on actual biomass density in Texas showed that higher and more spatially consistent biomass density would be an important factor in selecting a potential location for the bioelectricity plant. Harvesting mesquite has the potential for bioenergy feedstock given certain densities and total land areas since higher harvest and transport costs are offset by essentially no production costs.

Keywords

Cellulosic bioenergy Cost Economics Feedstock Low input biofuel Rangeland wood species 

References

  1. 1.
    USDA (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industy: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. United States of Department of Agriculture. http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2010
  2. 2.
    Green C, Avitabile V, Farrell EP, Byrne KA (2006) Reporting harvested wood products in national greenhouse gas inventories: implications for Ireland. Biomass Bioenergy 30:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright LL (1994) Production technology status of woody and herbaceous crops. Biomass Bioenergy 6:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Auken OW (2000) Shrub invasions of North American semiarid grasslands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felker P (1984) Economic, environmental, and social advantages of intensively managed short rotation mesquite (Prosopis spp.) biomass energy farms. Biomass Bioenergy 5:65–77Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SCS (1998) Texas brush inventory. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services Misc Report, Temple, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu W, Li Y, Carraway B (2008) Estimation of woody biomass availability for energy in Texas. College Station: Texas Forest Service Report. http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=100&ptaxid=146&dtaxid=168&taxid=240. Accessed 30 Sept 2011
  9. 9.
    Ansley RJ, Mirik M, Castellano MJ (2010) Structural biomass partitioning in regrowth and undisturbed mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa): implications for bioenergy uses. Glob Change Bio Bioenergy 2:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ansley RJ, Wu XB, Kramp BA (2001) Observation: long-term increases in mesquite canopy cover in a north Texas savanna. J Range Manage 54:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mapemba LD, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM, Huhnke RL (2007) Bioelectricity plant feedstock production on conservation reserve program land. Rev Agr Econ 29:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haque M, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM (2009) Nitrogen and harvest frequency effect on yield and cost for four perennial grasses. Agron J 101:1463–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Downing M, Graham RL (1996) The potential supply and cost of biomass from energy crops in the Tennessee valley authority region. Biomass Bioenerg 11:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epplin FM (1996) Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion facility in the southern plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenerg 11:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morris BD (2008) Economic feasibility of ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice in Texas. Thesis, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aravindhakshan SC, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM (2010) Economics of switchgrass and miscanthus relative to coal as feedstock for generating electricity. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1375–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLaughlin SB, de la Torre Ugarte DG, Garten CT (2002) High-value renewable energy from prairie grasses. Environ Sci Technol 36:2122–2129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whisenant SG, Burzlaff DF (1978) Predicting green weight of mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr.). J Ecol 56:1–24Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felker P, Clark PR, Osborn JF, Cannell GH (1982) Biomass estimation in a young stand of mesquite (Prosopis spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), palo verde (Cercidium floridium and Parkinsonia aculeate), and Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephal). J Range Manage 35:87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bennett AS, Anex RP (2009) Production, transportation and milling costs of sweet sorghum as a feedstock for centralized bioethanol production in the upper Midwest. Bioresour Technol 100:1595–1607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen W, Annamalai K, Ansley RJ, Mirik M (2012) Updraft fixed bed gasification of mesquite and juniper wood samples. Energy 41:454–461Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ansley RJ, Castellano MJ (2006) Strategies for savanna restoration in the southern Great Plains: effects of fire and herbicides. Restor Ecol 14:420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teague WR, Dowhower SL (2003) Patch dynamics under rotational and continuous grazing management in large, heterogeneous paddocks. J Arid Environ 53:211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geyer WA (2006) Biomass production in the central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes. Biomass Bioenergy 30:778–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Voets T, Kuppens T, Cornelissen T, Thewys T (2011) Economics of electricity and heat production by gasification or flash pyrolysis of short rotation coppice in Flanders (Belgium). Biomass Bioenergy 35:1912–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The power plants around: biomass power plant. http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm. Accessed 3 Mar 2010
  27. 27.
    McLauchlan RA, Felker P, Scherer G (1990) Economical harvesting of rangeland brush to produce energy/chemical feedstock. Proceedings of American Solar Energy Society Annual Conference, Austin , TXGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buchholz T, Volk TA (2011) Improving the profitability of willow crops-identifying opportunities with a Crop Budget Model. Bioenerg Res 4:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ashton S, Jackson B, Schroeder R (2007) Cost factors in harvesting woody biomass. In: Hubbard W, Biles L, Mayfield M, Ashton S (eds) Sustainable forestry for bioenergy and bio-based products: trainers curriculum notebook. Southern Forest Research Partnership, Athens, pp 153–156Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graham RL, English BC, Noon CE (2000) A geographic information system-based modeling system for evaluating the cost of delivered energy crop feedstock. Biomass Bioenergy 18:309–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khanna M, Dhungana B, Clifton-Brown J (2008) Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Teague WR, Kreuter UP, Grant WE, Diaz-Solis H, Kothmann MM (2009) Economic implications of maintaining rangeland ecosystem health in a semi-arid savanna. Ecol Econ 68:1417–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mirik M, Ansley RJ (2012) Comparison of ground-measured and image-classified mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) canopy cover. Rangeland Ecol Manag 65:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ansley RJ, Mirik M, Surber B, Park SC (2012) Canopy area and aboveground biomass of redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii Sudw.) trees: remote sensing implications. Rangeland Ecol Manag 65:189–195Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Palma MA, Richardson JW, Roberson BE, Ribera LA, Outlaw J, Munster C (2011) Economic feasibility of a mobile fast pyrolysis system for sustainable bio-crude oil production. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 14:1–16Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bhat MG, English B, Ojo M (1992) Regional costs of transporting biomass feedstocks. In: Cundiff JS (ed) Liquid Fuels from Renewable Resources: Proceedings of an Alternative Energy Conference, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp 50–57Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McLaughlin SB, Kszos AL (2005) Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 28:515–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ansley RJ, Pinchak WE, Teague WR, Kramp BA, Jones DL, Jacoby PW (2004) Long term grass yields following chemical control of honey mesquite. J Range Manage 57:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seong C. Park
    • 1
  • R. James Ansley
    • 2
  • Mustafa Mirik
    • 2
  • Marc A. Maindrault
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsTexas AgriLife Research-VernonVernonUSA
  2. 2.Ecosystem Science and ManagementTexas AgriLife Research-VernonVernonUSA

Personalised recommendations