Advertisement

The Capital Efficiency Challenge of Bioenergy Models: The Case of Flex Mills in Brazil

  • Peter Goldsmith
  • Renato Rasmussen
  • Guilherme Signorini
  • Joao Martines
  • Carolina Guimaraes
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 33)

Abstract

Bio-based energy sources have received increasing interest in recent years as petroleum prices have risen, geo-political instability has increased, and climate change has been in evidence. Extensive farming systems producing bio-based feedstocks, such as maize and sugarcane, are the models most widely used. Similar models are planned for dedicated cellulose crops such as miscanthus and eucalyptus. Bioenergy feedstock production that follows the current commercial agricultural model may inefficiently employ capital as the spatial density of the system, and the relative gravimetric density of the feedstock and volumetric density of the fuel products are low. The example of ethanol production in Mato Grosso, Brazil demonstrates the key concepts of density and capital intensity that are so critical to the efficient use of capital.

Keywords

Ethanol Production Wheat Straw Capital Cost Feedstock Production Real Estate Asset 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Altman E (1968) “Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy,” J Financ 23, 589–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arjona E, Bueno G, and Salazar L (2001) “An Activity Simulation Model for the Analysis of the Harvesting and Transportation Systems of a Sugarcane Plantation,” Compu Electron Agr 32, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carolan J, Joshi S, and Dale B (2007) “Technical and Financial Feasibility Analysis of Distributed Bioprocessing Using Regional Biomass Pre-Processing Centers,” J Agric Food Industrial Org 5, 10.Google Scholar
  4. Coelli T, Grifell-Tatje E, and Perelman S. (2002) “Capacity utilisation and profitability: A decomposition of short-run profit efficiency,” Int. J. Production Economics, 79, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallagher P, Brubaker H, and Shapouri H (2005) “Plant Size: Capital Cost Relationships in the Dry Mill Ethanol Industry,” Biomass Bioenerg 28, 565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gombola M and Ketz J (1983) “Financial Ratio Patterns in Retail and Manufacturing Organizations,” Financ Manage 12, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graf A and Koehler T (2000) “Oregon Cellulose-Ethanol Study an Evaluation of the Potential for Ethanol Production in Oregon Using Cellulose-Based Feedstocks,” Prepared by Bryan & Bryan Inc Colorado for submission to the Oregon Office of Energy. June.Google Scholar
  8. Hamelinck C and Faaij A (2006) “Production of Advanced Biofuels,” Int Sugar J 108, 168–175.Google Scholar
  9. Hassuani SJ, Leal MRLV, de Carvalho Macedo I, Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, and Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento (2005) Biomass power generation sugar cane bagasse and trash. CTC PNUD.Google Scholar
  10. Kerstetter J, Lyons J, W.S. University, and C.E.E. Program (2001) Logging and Agricultural Residue Supply Curves for the Pacific Northwest, Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Energy Program.Google Scholar
  11. Martines-Filho J, Burnquist H, and Vian C (2006) “Bioenergy and the Rise of Sugarcane-Based Ethanol in Brazil,” Choices, 21, 91–96.Google Scholar
  12. McAloon A, Taylor F, Yee W, Ibsen K and Wooley R (2000) “Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.Google Scholar
  13. Nguyen M and Prince R (1996) “A Simple Rule for Bioenergy Conversion Plant Size Optimisation: Bioethanol from Sugar Cane and Sweet Sorghum,” Biomass Bioenerg, 10, 361−365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nissim D and Penman S (2001) “Ratio Analysis and Equity Valuation: From Research to Practice,” Rev Acc Stud 6, 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Overend R (1982) “The Average Haul Distance and Transportation Work Factors for Biomass Delivered to a Central Plant,” Biomass, 2, 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Searcy E, Flynn P, Ghafoori E and Kumar A (2007) “The Relative Cost of Biomass Energy Transport,” Appl Biochem Biotech 137, 639−652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Singh, V. (2008) Professor, the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, the University of Illinois. Personal Communication.Google Scholar
  18. Signorini G, Goldsmith PD, Martines JG, Guimaraes CP and Rasmussen R (2007) “Flex-mill: Integrating corn and sugarcane produced in Mato Grosso,” Working Paper. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, The University of Illinois and the Departamento de Economia, Adminstração e Sociologia, the University of São Paulo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Goldsmith
    • 1
  • Renato Rasmussen
    • 1
  • Guilherme Signorini
    • 2
  • Joao Martines
    • 2
  • Carolina Guimaraes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-ChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Department of Economics, Management and SociologyUniversity of Sao PauloSao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations