Print

Addressing Obstacles in the Biomass Feedstock Supply Chain

By Kate L. Bechen | January 04, 2011

Biomass is one of the oldest energy sources, and there are compelling arguments for its use to generate electricity. First, unlike fossil fuels, the regenerative capacity of biomass provides for a renewable fuel source. Second, a significant amount of viable feedstock is considered waste, the use of which serves the dual purposes of energy production and waste management. Third, the use of sustainable biomass displaces the use of fossil fuels. Though both fuel sources emit CO2, the CO2 emitted by biomass would occur anyway through the process of decomposition, so there is a net reduction in CO2 emissions. Finally, the combustion of biomass also reduces methane emissions associated with the naturally occurring process of decomposition.


Despite the significance and potential of biomass as an energy source, development of a reliable feedstock supply chain has not occurred. Developers understand that a stable, long-term feedstock agreement is essential to procuring financing for any biomass project. Demonstrating to a landowner or farmer that the economic and other benefits of producing biomass (the production of which is often a multi-year commitment) outweigh the current land use can be a challenge without an established demand for the feedstock. Current land use, such as row crops, hunting habitat or Conservation Reserve Program acres, competes with biomass crops. Creating demand for feedstock also requires construction of conversion facilities, which require financing in addition to the financing of the generation facilities. And, in the true spirit of the chicken and the egg conundrum, lenders and investors require a reliable, long-term feedstock source before financing a project.  


Prohibitively high costs are often cited as a major driver behind decisions to abandon biomass projects. Research into cost saving processes is currently underway. For example, it has been shown that denser fuel pellets offer cost savings but the drawback is that often the pelletization process results in significant feedstock loss. At the same time, the storage and transportation costs of denser pellets are significantly lower than other densification options, such as baling. Efforts to integrate biomass with traditional agriculture, for example through the use of crop rotation and agricultural intensification may lead to yield increases and price reductions. Sustainable harvesting techniques, such as one-pass harvesting, can reduce harvest site fuel consumption significantly. Further, developing synergies between harvest and transport, for example by using self-compacting wagons for both harvesting and transportation, may also provide cost savings. 


Satellite processing may save costs by allowing certain preprocessing of the biomass to occur before transportation to the conversion facility. Drying and densification of the feedstock with mobile equipment that can be located close to the feedstock can reduce transportation costs. The establishment of regional processing centers that aggregate, process, store and supply biomass to the region could also provide significant cost reductions. In addition to drying and densification, regional centers could perform other preprocessing procedures to homogenize feedstock from several sources. Developers could decrease expenses associated with having multiple feedstock contracts. The aggregator, given its size, should be able to provide a more reliable supply, as a result of the large quantities it can handle.


According to the chief executive officers of several major biofuel companies, advanced biofuel commercialization is only a few years away, even though many argue that this is overly optimistic. Biomass projects will need to find the right combination of the type and location of feedstock, cost effective harvest and transportation methods and demand for output.


With an increasing number of states adopting or expanding their renewable portfolio standards, utilities can help drive demand for biomass projects. Often utilities assign more value to biomass projects because unlike wind or solar, it is base-load power. As technology evolves, we will see maturation of the supply chain through the introduction of satellite and regional processing facilities. These advances, in conjunction with more effective harvest techniques, the development of high-yield energy crops and advancements in processing and conversion technology can all work to move the industry forward.

Author:Kate L. Bechen
Member, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP’s Renewable Energy,
Health Care and Business Practice Groups
klbechen@michaelbest.com
(414) 225-4956

 

4 Responses

  1. Richard Rodriguez

    2011-01-06

    1

    Thanks for your perspective. My research confirms what you say about costly biomass processed like corn to ethanol. Still new developments using grasses for pellet production as in Jatropha and Giant King Grass are encouraging. How about more news on these. Efficiencies as in yields for direct combustion is foremost in my opidnion. Thanks Richard

  2. Gary Arndt

    2011-01-06

    2

    Richard notes Giant King Grass in his reply. It should also be pointed out that GKG can be grown on marginal land not suitablle for food and can be harvested 3-4 times a year therefore significantly reducing production cost/ton. It can be burned in bail or pellet form. Patents are held by Viaspace. Inc. Would be interested in your thoughts on this product. Gary

  3. Larry Wright

    2011-01-10

    3

    To follow Richard & Gary's comments,I too see alot of promise in several products. The product that stands out in my research is the "Giant King Grass" produced by Viaspace. It appears to have the highest yield,which in turn reduces the cost of production. Its uses are many such as Bio-methane, green gasoline,cellulosic ethanol etc. I too would be interested in your thoughts & research on the GKG. Thanks Larry

  4. Arturo Velez

    2011-01-24

    4

    Dear Kate, According to Dr. park S. Nobel, Agave yields 42 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare per year, yielding 3X more sugars than sugarcane in Brazil (and healthier, too!) and 4X more cellulose than the fastest growing eucalyptus, at a very low cost of production. Agave needs no irrigation -Agave americana, one of the most promissing species, thrives with only 190mm of rain per year- nor agrochemicals; withstands saline and acidic soils; is very prolific -one individual can produce up to one million new pups-; easy to cultivate -is currently cultivated in the 5 continents-, and thrives on marginal land in arid and semiarid climates, encompasing over 40% of the World's inhabitable land (agriculture uses 30%). Agave is most probable the best feedstock for an integrated biorefinery where electricity is generated and biofuels, bioproducts, biomaterials and "green" chemicals are produced. There are currently ove one hundred million tonnes of agave ready to harvest. Agave could bring wealth and health to the poorest regions in the world. If we planted agave in the arid and semiarid USA -Agave americana is native to Southern US-, we could triple dry biomass availability in just a few years to 5 billion annual tonnes of dry biomass. Best, Arturo agaveproject2@gmail.com

  5.  

    Leave a Reply

    Biomass Magazine encourages encourages civil conversation and debate. However, we reserve the right to delete comments for reasons including but not limited to: any type of attack, injurious statements, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising.

    Comments are closed