Woody Biomass from Forests and
Willow Biomass Crops
T. Volk, T. Buchholz, and P. Castellano
Sustainability and Forest Biorefinery II: Bringing
bio-based products to market
Syracuse, NY October 20 – 21, 2008
Colleagues and Collaborators
• SUNY - ESF
–
–
–
–
Dr. Thomas Amidon - Dr. Lawrence Abrahamson - Dr. Kim Cameron
Doug Daley
- Michael Kelleher
- Dr. Valerie Luzadis
Dr. Lawrence Smart - Dr. Arthur Stipanovic
Dr. Ed White
Graduate Students
- Thomas Buchholz
- Jaconette Mirck
- Godfrey Ofezu
- Amos Quaye
- Michelle Serapiglia
– numerous undergraduate students
• Academic Partners and Collaborators
–
–
–
–
–
–
Agrifood and Biosciences Institute
Cornell University
Middlebury College
SUNY Delhi
University of Guelph
University of Saskatchewan
- Canadian Forest Service
- Michigan State University
- Montreal Botanical Gardens
- University of Connecticut
- University of Minnesota
• Industrial Partners
– Agricultural Development Services
- AgroEnergie
– Case New Holland
- Catalyst Renewables
– Honeywell International
- Mesa Engineering
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
- Antares Inc.
-Double A Willow
- O’Brien and Gere
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Sustainability of bioenergy systems
Woody biomass from forests in NY
Assessment of woody biomass supplies
Willow biomass crops as one of multiple
source of woody biomass
Hurdles to commercialization of willow
biomass crops
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Bioenergy Systems are Complex
Community watershed
Ecosystems
Natural
systems
Waste products
Products from hunting and gathering
Goods, Capital,
Technology,
Training,
Political power
Solar energy
Ash
products
Agricultural
land
Agricultural
residues
Human
population
Woody
biomass
Short
rotation
coppice
Conversion
technology
Usable
power
(Agricultural)
Goods,
Capital
Maintenance
Community
Degraded
land
Natural resource
management
Decison points
Atmospheric carbon
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Soil & Biodiversity loss
Wastewater?
Outside
community
Atmospheric emissions
Impact of the People Factor
• Misperceptions about biomass
– Value laden, emotionally charged
issues
– Need for good scientific evidence to
address concerns
– Need for long term discussions with
concerned groups
• Lack of stakeholder involvement
and participation, especially at the
local level
Preliminary engineering for 35MW
wood fired facility in Oneonta, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
– 1/3 of biomass projects in the UK in
the late 1990s failed because of local
opposition (Upreti 2004)
– 2/3 of small scale gasifiers deployed
in India were not in operation after a
year
– local opposition stops wood bioenergy
project in Oneonta, NY
– CREP policy support for establishing
willow biomass crops in NY is derailed
What is Sustainability?
• A commonly cited definition of sustainable
•
development originated from the Bruntland
Commission (1987)
“Economic development that meets the
needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs”
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Sustainability
• A concept that is based on human values,
•
•
•
perceptions and political interests associated with
environmental, economic and social components of
a system
A directional, rather than absolute, measure
because it is based on human values that will
change over multiple scales of time and space
Differences in values often result in disagreements
on criteria and mechanisms to assess sustainability
Need to develop agreed upon mechanisms to
assess the concept
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
International Assessment of
Sustainability Criteria
• 46 bioenergy experts covering experience in
•
•
•
different regions, types of bioenergy systems, scale
of operations, and professions.
35 sustainability criteria identified that are regularly
discussed for bioenergy
Participants scored sustainability criteria on four
attributes including importance, relevance,
practicality, and reliability
Ranked on scale of 1-3, except importance where a
fourth category of ‘critical’ was included
(Buchholz et al. 2008)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Critical Criteria in Importance Category
(Buchholz et al. 2008)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Top Third of Criteria in the
Importance Category
• GHG balance
• Energy balance
• Soil protection
• Participation
• Water management
• Natural resource efficiency
• Microeconomic sustainability
• Compliance with laws
• Ecosystems protection
• Monitoring of criteria performance
• Food security
• Waste management
• Environmental
• Social
• Economic
(Buchholz et al. 2008)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Top Third of Criteria in the
Importance Category
• GHG balance
• Environmental
• Energy balance
• Social
• Soil protection
• Economic
• Participation
• Water management
Low practicality
• Natural resource efficiency
and reliability
• Microeconomic sustainability
• Compliance with laws
• Ecosystems protection
• Monitoring of criteria performance
• Food security
• Waste management
(Buchholz et al. 2008)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Assessing Sustainability
• Challenge is the create an assessment process
– flexible enough to address differing opinions about sustainability
– simple enough to implement
• Should help to identify components of the system that are
•
•
functioning effectively and others that need improvement
Several efforts underway related to bioenergy and biofuels in
Europe and U.S.
Sustainable forestry programs already in place
– Application of these systems to harvesting of woody biomass for
bioenergy is being discussed
• Some guidelines and regulations about biomass harvesting
from forests have been developed
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Woody Biomass Feedstocks
Large quantities of
wood residues from
primary and
secondary wood
product
manufacturers are
available
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Low value wood
from forests can be
harvested
sustainably
Willow biomass
crops can be grown
on under utilized
open land
NY’s Forest Resources
• 18.5 million acres of forest land
• 15.4 million acres of timberland
New York State Land Cover
-
– 774 million tons of standing
biomass
• How much woody biomass is
Miles
0
Legend
15
30
60
90
120
N YS La nd Co ver
W ate r
F ores t 19 ,55 7,15 5 a c.
P asture/Ha y 6 ,03 3,5 72 a c.
R ow Cro ps
1,6 94 ,2 29 ac.
Map C reate d for th e Willow Biom ass Project
Dat e: Jun e 14, 2005
•
•
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
technically available from
timberland in NY?
Make use of FIA and TPO data
sources
Report on a county by county
basis
Technically Available Woody
Biomass from Forests in NY
• Merchantable growing stock (59%)
– 70% of net annual growth – current
removals
• Recoverable material from current
harvesting operations (15%)
– Assumes 65% of material collected
• Non growing stock (26%)
– Assumes 1% of this standing biomass is
harvested each year
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
©The Research Foundation of SUNY 2008
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Socio-economic Potential
• Amount of technically available resource
will vary due to a range of socioeconomic
factors:
– Perceptions and assessments of sustainability
– Market prices for other energy sources (coal,
oil, natural gas)
– Prices for biomass for other uses (i.e. pulp
logs, saw logs, pellets, firewood, mulch)
– Landowners management objectives
– Incentives and policies that support renewable
energy
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Willow Biomass Crops on
Marginal Agricultural Land
• Over 7.5 million acres of
New York State Land Cover
•
-
•
Miles
0
Legend
15
30
60
90
120
N YS La nd Co ver
•
W ate r
F orest 19 ,55 7,15 5 a c.
P asture/Ha y 6 ,03 3,5 72 a c.
R ow Cro ps
1,6 94 ,2 29 ac.
Map C reate d for th e Willow Biom ass Project
Dat e: Jun e 14, 2005
Land cover types in NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
agricultural land cover in NY
About 1.5 - 2.0 million acres
are under utilized
Willow biomass crops could
be an alternative crop for
farmers and landowners
Produces environmental and
rural development benefits
in addition to bioenergy
and/or bioproducts
Assessment of Woody Biomass Supply
• Determine
amount of woody
biomass from
forests and willow
biomass crops
available in 50
mile radius
around
Lyonsdale, NY
50 mile radius woody supply shed around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Assessments of Woody Biomass
from Forests
• 2.8 million acres of
•
forest cover
Remove forest land:
–
–
–
–
preserves
excessive slope
small parcels
classified wetlands
• Result is 1.3 million
•
Timberland in a 50 mile radius around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
acres of timberland
Potential production of
717,000 odt per year
Assessments of Woody Biomass
from Forests
• 1.5 million acres of
•
forest cover
Remove forest land:
–
–
–
–
preserves
excessive slope
small parcels
classified wetland
• 0.9 million acres of
•
timberland
Potential production of
469,000 odt per year
– 65% of 50 mile radius
assessment
Timberland within the 50 mile road network around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Assessments of Woody Biomass
from Agricultural Land
• 842,000 acres of
•
agricultural land cover
Remove land:
– not classified for
agriculture
– excessive slopes
– wetlands
– small parcels
• 400,000 acres
•
Agricultural land in a 50 mile radius around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
remaining
On 10% of this land
(40,000 acres) can
produce 200,000
odt/yr
Assessments of Woody Biomass
from Agricultural Land
• 518,000 acres of
•
agricultural land cover
Remove land:
– not classified for
agriculture
– excessive slopes
– wetlands
– small parcels
• 250,000 acres
•
Agricultural land in a 50 mile radius around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
remaining
On 10% of this land
(25,000 acres) can
produce 125,000
odt/yr
– 62.5% of 50 mile radius
supply
Assessment of Woody Biomass Supply
• A total of 917,000 odt of
•
•
50 Mile radius and road network
around Lyonsdale, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
woody biomass is
technically available from a
50 mile radius
Using the 50 mile road
network, 593,000 odt are
technically available
Willow biomass crops
grown on a land area that is
3% of the timberland area
could produce 21% of the
total biomass
Why Willow?
• High biomass production
•
•
•
•
Three-year old willow in Tully, NY
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
•
potential
Produces uniform
feedstock
Easily established with
unrooted cuttings
Resprouts vigorously after
each harvest
Limited insect and pest
problems
Wide range of genetic
variability
Previous and Current Willow Trials
Previous biomass sites
Current biomass sites
Phytoremediation sites
Living Snowfence sites
Riparian buffer sites
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Global Carbon Cycles
Natural Gas
1
0.40
100 % Carbon Closure
1J
(Assumes 0.25 t/ha-yr increase in soil carbon)
11-16 J
55 J
Feedstock
Production
(62%)
Transportation
(12%)
(Mann and Spath 1997, Heller et al. 2003)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Power Plant
Construction
(26%)
Net CO2
Emissions: 0%
Corn Ethanol
1
1.34
Willow Biomass Production Cycle
Three-year old after
coppice
Site Preparation
Planting
Harvesting
One-year old after
coppice
Coppice
First year growth
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Early spring after coppicing
Three Year Old Willow Biomass Crops
¾Willow yields are typically 4
odt/acre/yr in the first rotation and 5
odt/ac/yr in subsequent rotations
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Commercial Planting Stock Production
• Double A Willow, Fredonia NY
Shrub willows in nursery beds at
Double A Vineyards, Fredonia, NY
(www.doubleawillow.com).
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
– About 100 acres of willow nursery
beds planted since 2005
– Produced about 5 million cuttings
in 2007/08 for biomass crops and
for other applications
– Projected production of 15 million
cuttings in 2008/09
– Future production potential of
about 30 million cutting 10 new
willow varieties from SUNY ESF
breeding and selection program
Commercial Plantings Established
by Catalyst Renewables in 2008
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Challenges to Commercialization of Willow
• The people factor
– Misperceptions about biomass and willow
– Different opinions about the concept of sustainability
• Economics of the systems
– High up front establishment cost
– Yields and low prices for biomass
– High harvesting costs
• Infrastructure to support willow deployment
– Large amount of planting stock (typical planting density is 5,800
plants acre-1)
– Equipment for planting and harvesting
– Lack of experience and understanding for large scale
implementation
– Need for consistent and ongoing R&D and policy support for
energy crops
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Challenges to Commercialization of Willow
• Near and long term markets
– The chicken and egg question
– Higher value products from willow and woody
biomass
• Policy support to launch new biomass
production systems
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Willow Cash Flow Model
(Available to download from http://www.esf.edu/willow/download.asp/)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Willow Biomass - Economics
• Cash flow model for willow biomass crop production and
•
•
delivery to end user
Allows for input parameters to be set by each user
Includes all components of willow crop production from
site preparation to delivery of biomass to end user
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Land rental
Site preparation
Planting, maintenance and harvesting
25 mile delivery of willow biomass
Multiple harvests over 22 years
Removal of willow crop at end of 20 years
Assumes a $30/green ton price at the plant gate
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Economics of Willow – Base Case
(Beta)
Yearly cash flow in $ per acre
Next Graph
1,000
US $/acre (undiscounted)
500
0
-500
-1,000
-1,500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 13 14 15
Year
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
16 17 18 19 20
21 22
Economics of Willow – Base Case
Accumulated cash flow in $ per acre
4,000
Realistic
3,000
Optimistic (Revenues +10%; Expenditures -10%)
Pessimistic (Revenues -10%; Expenditures +10%)
US $/acre
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Year
NPV: $209/acre
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
IRR: 8%
Distribution of Expenses over 22 Years
Cost shares in %, undiscounted
100%
90%
0%
7%
Interest
14%
Stock removal
80%
Transport
70%
31%
60%
50%
Harvest
Fertilizer
3%
40%
Establishment
30%
24%
Administration
20%
3%
10%
18%
Land cost and
insurance
0%
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Impact of Establishment Costs
Establishment
costs
Project's IRR
14
12
10
1,500
8
6
1,000
4
2
500
0.05
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Costs per cutting in US$
Changes in establishment costs and IRR
with changes planting stock costs
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Project's IRR in %
Estab. costs in US$/acre
2,000
• Establishment costs in Europe
•
•
•
have decreased by 30-50% as
area planted to willow
increased
U.S. is benefitting from many
of the learned lessons so
reductions may not be as
steep, but there are gains to
be made
Planting stock accounts for 60
– 80% of establishment costs
Planting stock costs have
almost been cut in half with
production in a commercial
nursery (DoubleAWillow.com)
compared to earlier scale up
production at SUNY-ESF
Harvester Development
• Dormant season, single pass
•
•
•
New CNH Short-Rotation Coppice header
being tested in the UK in March 2008
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
•
cut and chip harvesting system
based on New Holland (NH)
forage harvester
Trials over the past two years
with a NH forage harvester
and specially designed cutting
head
CNH is developing a new
Short-Rotation-Coppice (SRC)
header
Initial field trials were run in the
UK in March 2008
Field trials planned for the US,
UK, Belgium and Germany in
the winter of 2008/2009
Since 1998, more than 600 crosses attempted
26 families of
S. purpurea
101 families of
S. eriocephala
91 other families, mainly S.
sachalinensis, S. miyabeana
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Effect of Increased Yield
IRR for 22 years
25
• Yield increase has a
IRR for 13 years
20
IRR in %
15
10
•
5
0
-5
3.0
5.1
7.1
9.1
-10
Biomass growth rate in odt/ac/year
Effect yield on IRR of willow biomass crops
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
significant impact on
IRR
Base case scenario
includes 4 odt ac-1
yr-1 in first rotation
and 5 odt ac-1 yr-1 in
subsequent
rotations
Policy Incentive Options
• Willow biomass crops classified as
agricultural crops in NY
• Potential support to develop industry to a
level where benefits from economy of
scale occur
– Conservation Reserve Program (CRP or
CREP), or biomass crop assistance program
(BCAP)
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Economics of Willow – With CRP
$35/ac for 10 years rental rate and 50% establishment cost share
Accumulated cash flow in $ per acre
5,000
Realistic
4,000
Optimistic (Revenues +10%; Expenditures -10%)
US $/acre
3,000
Pessimistic (Revenues -10%; Expenditures +10%)
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Year
NPV: $942/acre
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
IRR: 20%
Incentives
• Investment is about $900/acre
– $550/acre establishment grant + $35/acre for ten years
• Potential biomass production
– @ 5 odt acre-1 yr-1 for 20 years = 100 odt
» Cost is $9.00/odt or about $4.50 per green ton
• What acreage is needed to begin to capture economies of
scale
– Use 20,000 acres as an example
• Incentive cost for 20,000 acres over several years is
•
$18,000,000
Small cost to launch a new home grown source of reneweable
energy that has the potential to generate hundreds of new
jobs, reduce greenhouse gases, generate taxes, increase
landscape biodiversity etc.
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
• Biomass Crop Assistance Program in
•
•
Energy Title (Title IX) of Farm Bill
A new program to support the establishment
and production of crops for conversion to
bioenergy in project areas
Assist with collection, harvest, storage, and
transportation of eligible material for use in a
biomass conversion facility.
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Economics of Willow – With BCAP
$40/ac rental rate and 75% establishment cost share
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Economics of Willow – With BCAP
$40/ac rental rate and 75% establishment cost share
NPV - $1,036/acre
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
IRR – 26.8%
Price for Biomass
20
• Generating more
IRR in %
15
10
5
•
0
40
50
60
70
80
-5
Biomass price in US$/odt
Effect of changes in the price for willow biomass
on the crops IRR
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
90
value from the
feedstock could raise
the price for the
feedstock
Increasing price can
have a dramatic effect
on IRR for willow
biomass crops
Conclusions
• Need to develop consensus on the concept of
•
•
•
•
•
sustainability and how to assess it for woody biomass
Large potential for woody biomass supplies from forests
and willow biomass crops in many areas
Socioeconomic factors will influence the amount of
woody biomass that will be supplied
Efforts are underway to reduce the cost of willow
biomass production
Transition to a commercial crop has begun, but there
are many challenges ahead if this is going to be a
viable enterprise
Remember the people factor in each stage of the
system
© The Research Foundation of SUNY
Acknowledgements
¾ USDA CSREES
¾ USDA Rural
Development
¾ NYS Energy Research
and Development
Authority (NYSERDA)
¾ Honeywell International
¾NYS Dept. Agriculture
and Markets
¾ NYSTAR
© The Research Foundation of SUNY