agricultural areas, rather than huge industrial plantations as in Sweden that might better af- ford large six-figure equipment price tags. Current harvesting equipment options in- clude balers and modified combine-type sys- tems. The combine-type system looks like a corn harvester, but cuts the material with a saw blade, chips it, and then shoots it into a follow- ing chip van. Because the chips are harvested green, they need to be either piled in a field to dry or processed in a dryer. The baler system cuts the biomass and wraps it into a cylinder, like a large hay bale. The bales can be left to dry in the field and then transported to a pellet plant or other facility and ground before use. eCoNomiCs Thus far, it’s difficult to tell if the economics are quite there for this type of biomass production. Currently, the CWFC estimates establishment costs at $8,000 to 12,000/ha for the concen- trated design, which is about five to eight times the price of afforestation, says Sidders. The intensive site preparation and weed control in the first year of production are costly, requiring large initial investment. “We’re forecasting and validating the cost and productivity trajectories every year, based on the growth response. Our costs start high, but they are realistic. They’re pro-rated based on an operational scale, with full planting costs, all costs related to land, including land rental, and all the other liabili- ties all the way through the system, including equipment costs and supervision. If anyone says they are able to produce and recover the concentrated biomass for under $100/tonne, then you have to be skeptical.” The catch is that current chip prices are at least half that cost, and fossil energy prices are now low, although they likely won’t stay that way. Both the Globe and Mail and New York Times reported in August 2009 that natural gas prices reached a seven-year low that was actually below the cost of produc- tion. This type of situation makes it difficult for almost any type of bioenergy to compete with fossil energy. However, the productivity of woody crops is still to be determined over the whole lifespan of an operation. For concentrated biomass, annual production is conservatively estimated by the CWFC study at 6 to 12 oven dried tonnes/ha thus far. Establishment costs are high, but productivity can increase over the first several harvests while management costs decrease. So those who plow the crop under before it reaches its full lifespan will not re- ceive the full return on investment. In future, the crop’s value will also depend on the cost of carbon emissions and the value of carbon sequestration. Still, Sidders does not expect woody crops WWW.WORLDBIOENERGY.COM Your contact in Canada: Scott Jamieson, E-mail: sjamieson@ annexweb.com, Phone: 519-429-5180 22 canadianBIOMASS to replace forestry residue biomass, but rather to act as a supplement. “It’ll only be econom- ical in combination with other wood sources or other fibre sources,” he says. “If you’ve got a power plant up in the Hearst area, or Kirkland Lake, or Thunder Bay, for example, there’s cheaper access to wood fibre through the residues and waste material either at the forest or the mill.” But large energy users in agricultural areas have minimal access to for- estry biomass without transporting it large distances. The economics may be such that an investment in woody cropping to supple- ment forestry biomass and reduce fossil fuel use makes sense. “If you’ve got a power plant going up somewhere, you grow it right beside it; you don’t grow it 100 km away,” says Sid- ders. “This is just an addition to the other sources of cellulosic biomass, including some agricultural crops.” • SepteMBeR/OctOBeR 2009
Canadian Biomass September/October 2009: Page 22
