This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Chapter31
Economics of Producing Populus Biomass for
Energy and Fiber Systems1
"WW
Charles H. Strauss and Stephen C. Grado
~
Introduction
The economics of producing Populus biomass is a fairly
uncomplicated concept. Some set of inputs, usually land,
labor, and capital, is required in the biomass output production. Tune is an integral part of this process, and the
use of these inputs over time must be considered an investment proposition. Variability in the types and amounts of
inputs, length of time, and quantity of output complicates
the analysis. Much of the information presented by this book
should be factored into the economic analysis of Populus.
This chapter provides a general model of Populus production and its use in ethanol manufacture. Major components of the model were developed from research
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Short Rotation Woody Crop Program (SRWCP). The model considers the financial and energy costs of producing Populus
biomass at the plantation sites, and the added costs of harvesting, transporting, and storing the biomass. The resulting raw material costs apply to the conversion of Populus
biomass for either energy or fiber products.
An expanded model on the conversion of Populus biomass to ethanol is in the final section of this chapter and includes all of the production costs, from the plantation site to
the final product. Overall, these models are more important in identifying key components of the production process than they are in specifying particular costs. They
underscore the critical dimensions of the process and identify where further research and development is needed.
1
Klopfenstein, N.B.; Chun, Y. W.; Kim, M.-S.; Ahuja, M.A., eds.
Dillon, M.C.; Carman, R.C.; Eskew, L.G., tech. eds. 1997.
Micropropagation, genetic engineering, and molecular biology
of Populus. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 326 p.
Basic Design for Populus
Plantations
Populus models by Strauss and Wright (1990) and Strauss
a:'d Grado (1992) were developed to consider a plantation system established on high quality agricultural sites
~t a densi~ of 2,100 trees/ha (approximately 2.2 m 2 spacmg). Rotation length was from 5 to 8 years, with 2 or 3
rotations ~ticipated from any given planting. The opti~um rotation was selected on a least-cost pasis using a
discounted cash-flow analysis (Strauss et al. 1990).
Similar to agricultural row crops, plantations were established with a fall and spring planting site preparation
and a spring planting of the poplar cuttings. At the onset
of the fall season, the site received a total-kill herbicide
and mowing operation to remove old field vegetation, followed by plowing (table 1). Lime was added at this time,
depending on soil acidity. In the spring, the soil was harrowed, with a pre-emergent herbicide to counter residual
weeds. To supply an adequate nutrient base for tree
growth, phosphorus and potassium were added before
planting. However, nitrogen was not applied until the third
and fifth growing seasons to avoid augmenting weed
growth in the first 2 growing seasons. Machine planting
of the poplar cuttings was assumed within the cost structure of the model.
Additional herbicides were scheduled at the beginning
of the first 2 growing seasons to counter potential weed
growth. Protection from insect and canker damage was
thr~ugh a biennial insecticide/fungicide spray program.
This was a preventive cost against infestations, such as cottonwood leaf beetle (Chrysomela scripta) and Septaria canker.
Annual charges were assessed for land rent, property
taxes, and managerial supervision of the production effort. These requirements represented specific inputs to the
production function.
Harvesting and transportation strategies were developed from previous studies (Stokes et al. 1986; Strauss et
241
Section V Biotechnological Applications
Table 1. Financial and energy costs for the establishment and maintenance of SRWC Populus plantations.
Costs in U.S. dollars for 1995.
$/ha
Establishment
Fall/spring herbicides (3.3 kg/ha)
Mowing/brushing
Plowing/harrowing
Liming (1.0 Mglha)
Fertilization (60 kg/ha each P&K)
Planting (2, 100 cutting/ha)
Summer herbicides, year 1 and 22 (2.2 kg/ha)
Total establishment costs
Maintenance
Insecticide/fungicide (1.6 kg/ha/appl.)
Fertilization (120 kg of N/ha/appl.)
Land rent
Land taxes
Managerial
Approximate average annual maintenance costs
1
2
210
24
56
49
51
152
140
682
1,760
748
2,547
289
1,729
2,156
1,277
10,506
36
42
102
16
42
199
878
7,593
49,820
7,620
261
61,936
Mega joule per hectare.
Year 2 costs discounted at 5%.
al. 1988; Stuart et al. 1985). Harvesting equipment was
designed for the small-diameter, closely--spaced SRWC
plantations. After harvest, the biomass was either chipped
on-site or at the processing site. Transportation used was
either tractor-trailers for delivery of chipped material or
flatbed units for delivery of bundled tree stems.
Financial Cost Structure
The cost for each operation was developed from the
SRWCP data base (table 1). Charges for contracting for
the establishment and operation of commercial-sized plantations compared favorably to previous models of SRWC
systems (Lothner et al. 1985; Per lack et al. 1986; Strauss et
al. 1988). Cost differences within particular operations
were attributed to the type of equipment and amount of
material used. All establishment and maintenance costs
reflected an agricultural site with good aspect and soil
quality.
Establishment totaled $682/ha, including the discounted
charge for second-year herbicides (table 1). Herbicide application represented 51 percent of establishment costs; the
materials constituted over 90 percent of this expense. Land
preparation (mowing /brushing, plowing /harrowing) and
planting were 34 percent of the establishment costs; 54
percent of this expense was tied to the poplar cuttings.
First-year liming and fertilization was the final 15 percent.
242
Maintenance included the application of nitrogen during
the third and fifth growing season and the use of insecticides/ fungicides on an alternate year basis. In addition, an
annual managerial cost was assessed for administrative and
operational needs (table 1). Land rent represented the opportunity costs, or annual net return, of a good corn production site (7.8 Mg of grain/ha/yr). The capitalized net
value of the site at a 5 percent real rate of return was
$2,040 /ha. This was consistent with the land values used
in previous SRWC studies and was 20 percent above the
U.S. average for farm real estate (USDA ERS 1988). Annual property taxes were 0.75 percent of this land value.
Energy Cost Structure
The energy accounting system for the proposed SRWC
plantations was patterned after other agricultural cropping
systems (Pimentel1980; Roller et al. 1980) and related studies of commercial-sized SRWC plantations (Strauss et al.
1989; Zavitikovski 1979). Equipment costs included the
energy: 1) embodied in the equipment's basic materials;
2) employed in equipment fabrication; and 3) embodied
in repair parts. Net energy consumption over an equipment unit's life span was 82 percent of its total energy
(Pimentel 1980). The division of a unit's net energy consumption by its life span, in hours, provided an hourly
equipment cost.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
Economics of Producing Populus Biomass for Energy and Fiber Systems
Machinery costs for any given task were the product of
operating times and hourly equipment costs. Energy costs
for fuel, related material inputs, and labor were added to
their respective equipment tasks. Material input costs included the energy embodied in materials such as fertilizer, and the added energy required in its manufacture.
Labor's energy cost was based on a net analysis of the energy required by humans as agricultural laborers (Fluck
1981) and was 75 MJ /h (75 mega joule per hour). Although
this charge was higher than previous estimates, the energy cost of labor in most operations was small.
The energy cost of land was also organized as an opportunity cost, based upon the net energy secured from corn
production (49,820 MJ /ha/yr). This energy value compared favorably to previous estimates of corn production
in several U .5. regions (Pimentel1980 ). The energy charge
for property taxes was based upon the energy to financial
cost ratio of land rent and the cost of taxes.
The energy cost of establishing SRWC plantations was
10,506 MJ /ha (table 1). Site preparation and planting was
52 percent of this expense, herbicides were 29 percent, and
fertilization/liming was the final 19 percent. Site preparation and planting had proportionally larger energy costs
than financial costs due to the higher energy charges for
machinery and poplar cuttings. Annual maintenance was
substantial because of the energy budgeted for land rent
and taxes. The energy cost of poplar cuttings also reflected
th~ land's energy potential, with 40 percent of the cutting
cost tied to land use.
Plantation Yields and Unit Costs
A proposed yield was developed from the SRWCP data
sets (Strauss and Wright 1990). The 2,100 trees/ha plantation was projected to have a maximum mean annual increment of 16 metric tons, oven dry, per hectare per year
(Mg(OD)/ha/yr) by the sixth year.
.
Unit costs were estimated on a financial and energy basis
using an investment analysis approach developed for SRWC
plantations (Strauss et al. 1990). Under ~his approa~, ~it
costs are estimated as a function of the discounted fmancial
costs (or energy costs) of establishing and maintaining the
plantation and the discounted plantation yields.
Establishment ($/ha) + Maintenance ($/ha)
discounted
discounted
Unit cost
($/Mg(OD}}=----------Yield (Mg(OD)/ha)
discounted
To avoid the time bias associated with longer rotations,
the individual rotation lengths were analyzed as a per-
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
petual series. A 5 percent real rate of return was used
throughout the analysis, with the optimum rotation length
selected on a least-cost basis.
Plantation Costs
Analyses of a two-rotation system placed the least-cost
solutions at the sixth year, with unit costs of $19.06/
Mg(OD)and 4,381 MJ/Mg(OD)(tables2and 3). If the plantations could sustain 3 rotations per planting, the leastcost solutions were still at the sixth year, with costs of
$17.71 /Mg(OD) and 4,360 MJ /Mg(OD). These reductions
were attributed to the extended prorate of the establishment costs over an additional rotation. However, from an
energy cost standpoint, the reduction was small due to the
large, fixed expense ~f land in the production model.
Stratification of the financial costs by major inputs
(equipment, fuel, materials, labor, and land) showed that
the plantation operations were land intensive, with 44 percent of the plantation costs tied to land, 31 percent to material inputs, 18 percent to labor, and 8 percent to
equipment and fuel (table 2). Basically, the opportunity
cost of good quality land dominated the cash-flow aspects
of the biomass production system.
On an energy cost basis, the plantations were again land
intensive, with 93 percent of the costs originating from land
(table 3). As previously identified, this cost represented
the net energy gain available to land from corn production. Although this amount of energy was not actually used
by the system, it did represent a minimum energy payment to land from the SRWC system. As for actual energy
used by the system, the materials used in establishment,
protection from insects, etc., and fertilization were the major expenses, representing 74 percent of these energy costs.
Fuel, equipment, and labor were the remaining energy
inputs (table 3).
Total Delivered Cost
Unit costs for the harvesting/ transportation function
were developed from auxiliary studies of these operations
and were added to the plantation costs on a current,
nondiscounted basis (Stokes et al. 1986; Strauss et al. 1988;
Stuart et al. 1985). These amounted to $24/Mg(OD) and
977 MJ /Mg(OD}, based upon a SRWC-designed harvesting system and a 40-km one-way truck haul. A 15 percent
loss of material was assessed against the harvesting/ transportation function (tables 2 and 3).
The total delivered cost on a financial basis, including
harvest/ transportation and a 15 percent material loss, was
$46.42/Mg(OD) (table 2). Nearly 60 percent of the total cost
originated from harvesting/ transportation and material loss.
In reviewing the entire system, equipment was the primary
input, representing 31 percent of all costs (table 2).
243
..._
...-
Section V Biotechnological Applications
~
...-
Table 2. Financial costs by input type and operation for SRWC Populus biomass. Costs in U.S. dollars for 1995.
~
Percentage of cost by input
Labor
Materials
Unit cost
($/Mg(OD))1
Equipment
Fuel
Establishment
5.47
13.3
6.8
72.1
7.6
0.2
lnsect./fung.
1.30
13.3
3.3
81.4
1.9
0.0
Fertilization,
land rent and
taxes
1.02
11.4
2.9
81.0
4.7
0.0
8.30
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Managerial
2.97
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Plantation
operations2
19.06
5.3
2.3
30.6
18.1
43.7
Operation
~
Land
...s)
.,g
...._;
V:liil
~
~
.....,
~
Harvesting and
transportation 3
Material loss
(15%)
Total delivered
cost
24.00
55.0
22.1
0.0
22.9
Vlf)
0.0
\;8)
3.36
5.3
2.3
30.6
18.1
43.7
46.42
31.0
12.5
14.8
20.6
21.1
-.81
\31
~
1
Dollars per metric ton, oven dried.
2 Operation costs compounded to the end of the rotation at an interest rate of .05.
3 Strauss et al. (1988), revised for inflation to 1995.
.....,
~
-..:1
~
Table 3. Energy costs by input type and operation for SRWC Populus biomass.
~
Unit cost
($/Mg(OD))'
Percentage of cost by input
Labor
Materials
~
Equipment
Fuel
84.1
9.4
48.2
34.1
2.3
6.0
\;JJ/1
olnsect./fung.
31.9
8.7
19.0
72.0
0.3
0.0
v.sl
Fertilization
183.3
1.2
2.4
96.3
0.1
0.0
Operation
Establishment
°
Land
....
~
Land rent and
taxes
Managerial
Plantation
operations2
4,069.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
.....
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
...~
4,380.6
0.3
1.2
5.2
0.3
93.0
Harvesting and
transportation 3
976.9
15.1
82.3
0.0
2.6
0.0
Material
loss (15%)
773.0
0.3
1.2
5.2
0.3
93.0
~
~
...,
V:liil
\:!ill
Total delivered
cost
6,130.5
2.7
14.1
4.4
0.7
~
78.2
.......
1
Mega joules per metric ton, oven dried.
Operation costs compounded to the end of the rotation at an interest rate of .05.
3 Strauss et al. (1988), with revised labor energy costs.
2
.....\/Q;il
244
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
0
~
'vel
Economics of Producing Populus Biomass for Energy and Fiber Systems
The total energy cost was 6,130 MJ /Mg(OD) (table 3).
As a major input, land was 78 percent of the energy cost.
Exclusive of land, 65 percent of the energy was for fuel, 20
percent for materials, 12 percent for equipment, and 3 percent for labor.
6.0
Cl)
~
E
5.0
0
:c
4.0
0
3.0
~u
"0
Sensitivity Analysis
A review of the financial impact of various inputs on
the total delivered cost of SRWC biomass showed equipment having the greatest impact, with a 10 percent change
in its cost causing a 3.2 percent change in the delivered
cost of biomass (figure 1). Again, over 90 percent of the
equipment costs originated from the harvest/ transportation. As expected, inputs representing a s~aller portion
of total cost had a lesser affect on the delivered cost of
biomass.
Plantation yields had the greatest affect on unit costs. A
10 percent change in output would shift delivered costs
by approximately 5 percent. This key relationship underscored the importance of maintaining or exceeding the targeted production level of 16 Mg(OD)/ha/yr.
Ethanol ·Manufacturing Inventory
Control Model
SRWC research has focused on genetic, silvicultural, and
economic evaluations of plantation strategies. Research on
the conversion of woody biomass into energy products
represents another major endeavor. Inherent to the linkage between raw materials and final products is the need
to manage the inventories of inputs and outputs.
Forests are unique because trees represent the capital
input and product output. As a product, they represent a
financial commitment to inventory. Moreover, trees are
perishable and may be limited by the duration of the harvest period. The storage of harvested biomass involves
additional capital and operating costs, along with fluctuation in the inventory over time. Overall, matching the
cyclical and finite nature of plantations with the steady
state demands of a .processing plant is a complex inventory problem.
General Structure of an Inventory Control
Model
An inventory control model was developed by Grado
and Strauss (1993) to determine the least costly approach
for supplying biomass to a processing plant. A dynamic
programming format was used to evaluate the plantation,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
2.0
!
1.0
a;
0.0
.~
"C
g
·1.0 1-..-~-=----
Q)
C)
c
ns
.r;
u
E
-4.0
eCD
-5.0
CD
a.
·6.0
L__ _ _.J...__ _ _...L..._ _ __.___ _ __
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Percent change to input costs and plantation yields
Figure 1. Sensitivity of total delivered cost of Populus
biomass to changes of input costs and
plantation yields.
harvest, and manufacturing components of an ethanol
supply system.
The plantation component was based upon Populus
grown under 4 to 8 year rotations using a strategy similar
to that proposed by Strauss and Grado (1992). Harvesting
covered a 6-month period that followed the growing season, and employed technologies similar to Stokes et al.
(1986) and Stuart et al. (1985). The ethanol manufacturing
process was based upon enzymatic hydrolysis of woody
biomass as presented by Wright (1989) and Bergeron et al.
(1989). The proposed facility could process 10,000 Mg(OD)
of biomass per month to meet a maximum output of just
over 3 million liters per month. Each component of the
model generated particular inventories; various inventories were held during any given time period.
The model identified all costs associated with the plantation, harvest, and manufacturing components. Each component used an accounting format similar to that identified
by Strauss and Grado (1992). Establishment and maintenance costs for the plantation were added as capitalized
expenses to the harvest and transport costs, which were
then added to the manufacturing costs. All costs are reported in U.S. dollars for 1995 on a per metric ton, oven
dry (Mg(OD)), or per liter (L) basis.
Model solutions were for an annual operating cycle and
provided: 1) the minimum cost combination for plantation, harvest, and manufacturing strategies; 2) the harvesting schedule within a year; 3) a recommended inventory
policy for standing trees, harvested raw materials, and final product; and 4) net comparisons of existing supplies
to operating demands for each component.
245
Section V Biotechnological Applications
Model Results and Cost Comparisons
The use of inventory control policies as solutions to the
model provided more finished product at a lower unit cost
under any given rotation. Usually, the optimum harvesting policy provided substantial cost savings for any given
rotation. Although longer rotations could provide more
raw material and related finished product, there was an
increase in the inventories of raw material and product
and in raw material deterioration (table 4). Inventory control reduced these expenses for any given rotation. For
example, the least costly solution for a 6-year rotation was
$0.410/L (table 4), which was 38 percent lower than the
·
highest cost solution for the same rotation.
Among all rotation strategies, the least costly solution
was 6 years (table 4). This was consistent with the solution
found in the previous model. However, note that this cost
was not significantly lower than for the 7- or 8-year rotations. The highest cost items within the system were the
manufacturing process, harvest/ transportation, lost sales
(penalty costs assessed when the supply of final product
could not meet market demand), and plantation maintenance. The lowest cost items within the system were plantation establishment, raw material and final product
storage, and storage deterioration.
The model solution provided storage policies for standing trees, harvested materials, and finished products, along
with a plantation harvest schedule. Average storage time
for harvested biomass over an operating year was 2.5
months, with nearly 16,500 Mg(OD)/mo held in storage.
Ethanol inventories were influenced by monthly manufacturing, final product demand, and the inventory policy.
Storage of the final product was less costly than for harvested biomass (table 4). For the 6-year rotation, the average storage time for ethanol was only 1 month, with 1.9
million liters held per month. The upper storage level for
ethanol was 3.0 million liters, which also represented a
minimum long-term storage plant capacity.
The objective of the inventory policies was to coordinate
plantation inventories, wood chip storage, and ethanol storage. When viewed in the context of the dynamic market
demand for the finished product, these policies were successful in establishing efficient harvesting schedules and in
lowering the total costs of the production system.
Conclusions
What have we learned from over 15 years of SRWC research? First, if we only consider the production costs at
the plantation site, land is the dominant factor. This is particularly true in cases where plantations are placed on productive soils. Land rent and taxes can represent from 40 to
SO percent of the preharvest biomass cost. The cost of using good quality land is an alternative net return available
from other agricultural pursuits. For SRWC systems to
compete for land, comparable or higher net returns must
Table 4. Financial costs for an ethanol manufacturing system under alternate Populus rotation lengths. Cost in U.S.
dollars for 1995.
Plantation
Establishment
Maintenance
Harvest
Harvest/transport
Storage
Wood chips
Penalty
Deterioration loss
Manufacturing
Processing
Ethanol
Storage
Ethanol
Penalty
Market loss
Total
246
4
5
Costs ($/liter)
Rotation length (years)
6
0.015
0.068
0.013
0.058
0.010
0.048
0.011
0.046
0.010
0.046
0.079
0.075
0.074
0.074
0.074
0.009
0.013
0.017
0.020
0.020
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.242
0.242
0.242
0.242
0.242
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.140
0.060
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.562
0.472
0.410
0.412
0.411
7
8
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
Economics of Producing Populus Biomass for Energy and Fiber Systems
'\J:V
be provided by woody biomass. Lower priced, marginal
lands would reduce these costs, but would probably re·
sult in lower yields.
Second, the best means for lowering the unit cost of
woody biomass at the plantation is to increase plantation
yields. Although 16 Mg(OD)/ha/yr was suggested as an
average annual yield, sustaining this net average may be
difficult. If this annual yield was reduced by 10 percent,
preharvest costs would increase by over 12 percent, thereby
increasing delivered costs by over 5 percent. A comparison of small-plot research yields to commercial field yields
by Hansen (1988) suggested that the current field potential for SRWC plantations may be more in the range of 10
to 12 Mg(OD)/ha/yr. Further increases were considered
possible, but these future gains will depend on cultural
and breeding research. Higher yields would also require a
more precise matching of clonal hybrids to growing sites
and the successful implementation of cultural strategies
on these sites.
Biotechnology will largely determine the future competitive position of Populus. Research efforts should be
directed to 2 key areas; growth and yield, and maintenance costs. One method for decreasing costs is developing genetically superior stock with higher yields and lower
maintenance requirements. Higher yields are achievable
through increased survival rates of planting stock and the
overa.ll plantation, improved coppicing between rotations,
and increased growth rates. Associated with these enhancements, would be the adaptation of Populus to lower
quality sites, thereby reducing land costs. Further cost reductions are possible by developing varieties that require
less maintenance in terms of site preparation, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticide sprays. Potentially, these
improvements might involve certain compromises such
as faster-growing varieties that require higher maintenance costs. Under final analysis, the most cost-effective
opportunities for biotechnology will be those that address
yield and the major cost components of the production
equation.
Separate from the biological forces of growing Populus
are the technical factors required in the harvest, transport,
and storage of this raw material. These items more than
doubled the cost of the delivered and stored raw material.
Woody biomass is not a convenient material to handle or
move and, as such, further innovations are needed. Associated, many harvesting and transportation strategies are
adaptations of technologies used in domestic forests. Although further cost reductions are possible, they may require the development of commercial SRWC markets; this
precondition could stalemate the development process.
The manufacture of woody biomass into a liquid fuel
introduced another set of production costs. As identified
in the expanded model, over 50 percent of the final output
cost was tied to the conversion process, with the raw material at the plantation site representing less than 15 per-
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.
cent of the total production costs. In the context of today's
energy markets, the use of woody biomass for either liquid fuels or direct-bum electric generation cannot compete with abundant and relatively cheap fossil fuels.
However, over the past 15 years, Populus has been a viable
fiber stock for the paper and paperboard industry in selected regions of the U.S. In the Pacific Northwest, Populus
plantations were established in a relatively short time and
have provided a dependable fiber supply to certain niche
markets.
One potential shortcoming in this review of Populus has
been a disregard for the inherent qualities of the raw material. Basically, this woody biomass was viewed as a l?ase
of simple sugars or fiber stock for 2 general types of final
products. However, inherent to Populus is considerable
genetic variation for fiber length, chemical composition,
and other qualities affecting overall product. Optimization of these qualities for specific applications deserves
further attention and should serve as a focus for biotechnology research.
Literature Cited
Bergeron, P.W.; Wright, J.D.; Wyman, C.E.1989. Dilute acid
hydrolysis of biomass for ethanol production. In: Energy from biomass and wastes XII. Chicago, IL, U.S.A.:
Institute of Gas Technology: 1277-1297.
Fluck, R.C. 1981. Net energy sequestered in agricultural
labor. In: Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers- 1981. 24: 1449-1455.
Grado, S.C.; Strauss, C. H. 1993. An inventory control model
for supplying biomass to a processing facility. Applied
Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 39 I 40: 310-317.
Hansen, E.A. 1988. SRIC yields: A look to the future. In:
Proceedings: Economic evaluations of short-rotation
biomass energy systems. Duluth, MN, U.S.A. International Energy Agency: 197-207.
Lothner, D.C.; Hoganson, H.M.; Rubin, P.A. 1985. Examining short-rotation hybrid investments using stochastic simulation. Duluth, MN, U.S.A.: U.S .. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 31 p.
Perlack, R.D.; Ranney, J.W.; Barron, W.F.; Cushman, J.H.;
Trible, J.L. 1986. Short-rotation intensive culture for the
production of energy feedstocks in the U.S.: A review
of experimental results and remaining obstacles to commercialization. Biomass. 9: 145-59.
Pimentel, D. 1980. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL, U.S.A.: CRC Press. 475 p.
Roller, W.L.; Kenner, H.M.; Kline, R.D.; Mederski, H.J.;
Curry, R.D. 1980. Grown organic matter as a fuel raw
247
Section V Biotechnological Applications
material source. NASA Cr-2608. Dayton, OH, U.S.A.:
Ohio Agricultural and Development Center. 130 p.
Stokes, B.J.; Frederick, D.J; Curtin, D.T. 1986. Field trials of
a short-rotation biomass feller buncher and selected harvesting systems. Biomass. 11: 185-204.
Strauss, C.H.; Grado, S.C.; Blankenhorn, P.R.; Bowersox,
T.W. 1988. Economic evaluations of multiple rotation
SRIC biomass plantations. Solar Energy. 41: 207-14.
Strauss, C.H.; Grado, S.C.; Blankenhorn, P.R.; Bowersox, T.W.
1989. Developing financial and energy accounting models for woody biomass systems. Solar Energy. 42: 379-86.
Strauss, C.H.; Grado, S.C.; Blankenhorn, P.R.; Bowersox,
T.W. 1990. Financial selection of rotation age for SRIC
plantations. Biomass. 23: 5-69.
Strauss, C.H.; Wright, L.L. 1990. Woody biomass production costs in the United States: An economic summary
of commercial Populus plantation systems. Solar Energy.
45: 105-10.
248
Strauss, C.H.; Grado, S.C. 1992. Input-output analysis of
energy requirements for short rotation intensive culture
woody biomass. Solar Energy. 48: 45-51.
Stuart, W.B.; Markey, D.S.; Teel, J.B. 1985. A prototype short
rotation harvester. In: The International Forest Products
Research Society industrial wood energy forum '83.
Proc. 47337, Vol. 1. Madison, WI, U.S.A.: 167-174.
USDA Economic Research Service. 1988. Agricultural land
values and markets: Situation and outlook report. ARlO. Washington D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 30 p.
Wright, J.D. 1989. Evaluation of enzymatic hydrolysis
processes. In: Energy from biomass and wastes XII.
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.: Institute of Gas Technology:
1247-1277.
Zavitikovski, J. 1979. Energy production in irrigated, intensively cultured plantations of Populus tristis #1 and
Jack Pine. Forest Science. 25: 383-392.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-297. 1997.