Fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions of biomass based haulage in Ireland – A case study

The purpose of this study was to analyse how biomass based haulage in Ireland performed as a measure of efficiency under 4 main criteria; distance travelled, fuel consumption, fuel consumption per unit of biomass hauled and diesel CO2 emissions. The applicability of truck engine diagnostic equipment was tested to analyse the schedule of engine data that could be recorded in real-time from a 5 axle articulated biomass truck. This identified how new on board truck technology in Ireland could be used to monitor data in real-time, specifically fuel consumption, litre/km, litre/ton and distance to allow for informed analysis of how efficient new biomass trucking operations currently are in Ireland. Fleet Management System (FMS) monitoring systems are a relatively new technology in biomass and log transport in Ireland. They are more common place in the food supply chain with refrigerated units travelling across continental Europe where food temperature and truck movements are controlled data from a central dispatch. A GPS asset tracking monitoring system was also installed on the truck over the test period to record trip log data. The BT (biomass truck) was a 5 axle, 2004 DAF XF Euro III 430hp 4*2. Initial results showed that for the BT, the average daily fuel consumption varied from 0.23 L/km to 0.47 L/km. The thresholds of travelled distance were between 20.92 km and 434.91 km respectively with average fuel consumption per tonnage of woodchips of 0.16 L/ton and 5.68 L/ton. When the total daily distance is limited to 1 load within 200 km roundtrip versus 1 load at approximately 400 km trip, the % difference in logistic cost (€/T) is 56%. Delivering 2 loads per 400 km trip shows a 5.4% decrease in logistic costs versus the Trip 1 scenario confirming the increased efficiency of a more localised transport approach. A maximum percentage difference in costs of 45% that exists between a 2 load and 1 load trip occurs for Trip 22 and Trip 5 but this increases to 72% when analysing for 2 load versus 1 load for distances over 400 km. Trip 7 and 12 are both below 50 km and seem to be the exception and to compare could possibly show an element of distortion. The closest logistic cost to Trip 12 is Trip 5 with 113% higher costs confirming how a 50 km roundtrip can impact significantly on lowering biomass transport costs.

[1]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Logistics cost analysis of rice straw for biomass power generation in Thailand , 2011 .

[2]  Lucy Bastin,et al.  Comparing transport emissions and impacts for energy recovery from domestic waste (EfW): Centralised and distributed disposal options for two UK Counties , 2009, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[3]  Ger Devlin,et al.  Timber haulage routing in Ireland: an analysis using GIS and GPS , 2008 .

[4]  Ger Devlin,et al.  Development of a Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) for Route Costing Calculations within the Irish Timber Haulage Sector , 2008 .

[5]  Antti Korpilahti,et al.  Finnish forest energy systems and CO2 consequences , 1998 .

[6]  O.-J. Korpinen,et al.  How to analyse and maximise the forest fuel supply availability to power plants in Eastern Finland. , 2011 .

[7]  Maja Piecyk,et al.  Measurement of CO2 emissions from road freight transport: A review of UK experience , 2009 .

[8]  Riccardo Basosi,et al.  Evaluation of the energy efficiency evolution in the European road freight transport sector , 2009 .

[9]  Stasys Mizaras,et al.  Wood fuel supply, costs and home consumption in Lithuania. , 2007 .

[10]  J. Bergström,et al.  GIS-based benefits analysis of new forest truck roads. , 2000 .

[11]  Heikki Liimatainen,et al.  Trends of energy efficiency in Finnish road freight transport 1995–2009 and forecast to 2016 , 2010 .

[12]  G. Tavares,et al.  Optimisation of MSW collection routes for minimum fuel consumption using 3D GIS modelling. , 2009, Waste management.

[13]  Neven Duić,et al.  Geographic distribution of economic potential of agricultural and forest biomass residual for energy , 2011 .

[14]  Francisco Aparicio,et al.  Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid , 2009 .

[15]  F. Sebastián,et al.  Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by m , 2011 .

[16]  John B. Heywood,et al.  Reducing the fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of the US vehicle fleet , 2008 .

[17]  Paul Komor.  Reducing energy use in US freight transport , 1995 .

[18]  Dominik Röser,et al.  Present and future trends in pellet markets, raw materials, and supply logistics in Sweden and Finland , 2010 .

[19]  Lee Schipper,et al.  Trends in Truck Freight Energy Use and Carbon Emissions in Selected OECD Countries from 1973 to 2003 , 2009 .

[20]  Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos,et al.  Logistics issues of biomass: The storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain , 2009 .

[21]  Tapio Ranta,et al.  The profitability of transporting uncomminuted raw materials in Finland , 2006 .

[22]  Kazuhiro Aruga,et al.  A case study on the costs and the fuel consumption of harvesting, transporting, and chipping chains for logging residues in Japan , 2006 .

[23]  Elisabeth Wetterlund,et al.  Optimal localisation of biofuel production on a European scale , 2012 .

[24]  A. J. Seebregts,et al.  Energy Security in Ireland: A Statistical Overview , 2012 .

[25]  Haji Hassan Masjuki,et al.  Life cycle assessment of rice straw-based power generation in Malaysia , 2014 .

[26]  Lee Schipper,et al.  We keep on truckin': Trends in freight energy use and carbon emissions in 11 IEA countries , 2012 .

[27]  Mercedes Rafael-Morales,et al.  Reduced consumption and environment pollution in Mexico by optimal technical driving of heavy motor vehicles , 2002 .

[28]  Timo Tahvanainen,et al.  Supply chain cost analysis of long-distance transportation of energy wood in Finland , 2011 .