Abstract
A comparison between two different harvest systems for Miscanthus x giganteus crop (direct cut/chip and mow/bale) in terms of the net energy delivered to an end user, and the various energy costs and energy yields associated with each system was conducted. Only minor differences in terms of energy consumption were observed between the two harvest systems when all phases of the harvesting chain had been taken into account. Chip harvesting consumed 0.11 GJ t−1 compared with 0.13 GJ t−1 for bale harvesting. Chip transportation was considerably more expensive than bale transportation for a set distance of 50 km (0.18 and 0.11 GJ t−1 for chip and bale, respectively). Despite this, higher overall net energy yield was achieved by direct cutting and chipping the material. This was due to the higher proportion of harvestable energy lost in the field as a result of the use of a mowing/baling system. The overall net energy delivered in terms of harvestable material by the direct cut and chip system was 12.45 GJ t–1 compared with 11.78 GJ t−1 by the mow and bale system, making direct cut the more efficient system even up to a transport distance of 400 km. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the choice of transport system becomes more important for energy efficiency as transport distance increases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Price L, Bullard M, Lyons H, Anthony S, Nixon P (2004) Identifying the yield potential of Miscanthus x giganteus: an assessment of the spatial and temporal variability of M. x giganteus biomass productivity across England and Wales. Biomass Bioenergy 26(1):3–13
Scally L, Hodkinson T, Jones MB (2001) Origins and taxonomy of Miscanthus. In: Jones MB, Walsh M (eds) Miscanthus for energy and fibre. James and James (Science publishers) Ltd, London, pp 1–9
Greef JM, Deuter M, Jung C, Schondelmaier J (1997) Genetic diversity of European Miscanthus species revealed by AFLP fingerprinting. Genet Resour Crop Evol 44(2):185–195. doi:10.1023/a:1008693214629
Smeets EMW, Lewandowski IM, Faaij APC (2009) The economical and environmental performance of Miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains in a European setting. (Renew Sustain Energ Rev 13(6–7):1230–1245. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.006
El Bassam N, Huisman W (2001) Harvesting and storage of Miscanthus. In: Jones MB, Walsh M (eds) Miscanthus for energy and fibre. James and James (Science publishers) Ltd, London, pp 86–108
Venturi P, Huisman W, Molenaar J (1998) Mechanization and costs of primary production chains for Miscanthus x giganteus in the Netherlands. J Agric Eng Res 69(3):209–215
Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC, Scurlock JMO, Huisman W (2000) Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 19(4):209–227
Meehan PG, Finnan JM, Mc Donnell KP (2012) An assessment of the effect of harvest time and harvest method on biomass loss for Miscanthus x giganteus. GCB Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01205.x
Huisman W, Venturi P, Molenaar J (1997) Costs of supply chains of Miscanthus giganteus. Ind Crop Prod 6(3–4):353–366
Styles D, Jones MB (2007) Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy 31(11–12):759–772
Styles D, Thorne F, Jones MB (2008) Energy crops in Ireland: an economic comparison of willow and Miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass Bioenergy 32(5):407–421
Gigler JK, Meerdink G, Hendrix EMT (1999) Willow supply strategies to energy plants. Biomass Bioenergy 17(3):185–198. doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(99)00041-0
Meehan PG, Finnan JM, Mc Donnell KP (2013) The effect of harvest date and harvest method on the combustion characteristics of Miscanthus x giganteus. GCB Bioenergy (in press)
Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Porter JR (2001) A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87(1):51–65
Castanheira ÉG, Dias AC, Arroja L, Amaro R (2010) The environmental performance of milk production on a typical Portuguese dairy farm. Agric Syst 103(7):498–507. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.05.004
Bullard M, Metcalfe P (2001) Estimating the energy requirements and CO2 emissions from production of the perennial grasses Miscanthus, Switchgrass and Reed Canary Grass. ADAS Consulting, United Kingdom
RSA (2012) Guidelines on maximum weights and dimensions of mechanically propelled vehicles and trailers. Road Safety Authority of Ireland, Ireland
Hellström E, Ivarsson M, Åslund J, Nielsen L (2009) Look-ahead control for heavy trucks to minimize trip time and fuel consumption. Control Eng Pract 17(2):245–254. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2008.07.005
Lewandowski I, Kicherer A, Vonier P (1995) CO2-balance for the cultivation and combustion of Miscanthus. Biomass Bioenergy 8(2):81–90
Lewandowski I, Heinz A (2003) Delayed harvest of miscanthus–influences on biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy production. Eur J Agron 19(1):45–63
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the Teagasc Walsh Fellowship Programme for funding this study, and the technical assistance of Dr. Ger Devlin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meehan, P.G., Finnan, J.M. & Mc Donnell, K.P. A Comparison of the Energy Yield at the End User for M. x giganteus Using Two Different Harvesting and Transport Systems. Bioenerg. Res. 6, 813–821 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9307-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9307-6