Development of economic and environmental metrics for forest-based biomass harvesting

An assessment of the economic, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission dimensions of forest-based biomass harvest stage in the state of Michigan, U.S. through gathering data from literature, database, and other relevant sources, was performed. The assessment differentiates harvesting systems (cut-to-length harvesting, whole tree harvesting, and motor-manual harvesting), harvest types (30%, 70%, and 100% cut) and forest types (hardwoods, softwoods, mixed hardwood/softwood, and softwood plantations) that characterize Michigan's logging industry. Machine rate methods were employed to determine unit harvesting cost. A life cycle inventory was applied to calculating energy demand and GHG emissions of different harvesting scenarios, considering energy and material inputs (diesel, machinery, etc.) and outputs (emissions) for each process (cutting, forwarding/skidding, etc.). A sensitivity analysis was performed for selected input variables for the harvesting operation in order to explore their relative importance. The results indicated that productivity had the largest impact on harvesting cost followed by machinery purchase price, yearly scheduled hours, and expected utilization. Productivity and fuel use, as well as fuel factors, are the most influential environmental impacts of harvesting operations.

[1]  Ramachandran Kannan,et al.  Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation technologies in Singapore , 2007 .

[2]  S. Grigolato,et al.  Forest woodchips supply chain in Southern Italy , 2008 .

[3]  Celia Martínez-Alonso,et al.  Analysis of three forest chippers: productivity, costs and GHG emissions in Northern Spain , 2015 .

[4]  Larry Williams,et al.  Camelina‐derived jet fuel and diesel: Sustainable advanced biofuels , 2010 .

[5]  Abdullah Emin Akay,et al.  Estimating machine rates and production for selectedforest harvesting machines operatingin the western United States and determiningthe most economical machine combinations underrepresentative conditions in Turkey , 1998 .

[6]  Nopparat Manavakun Harvesting operations in eucalyptus plantations in Thailand , 2014 .

[7]  Pasi Lautala,et al.  A Survey Analysis of Forest Harvesting and Transportation Operations in Michigan , 2014 .

[8]  Bryce J. Stokes,et al.  U.S. Billion-ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry , 2011 .

[9]  Francis A. Roesch,et al.  Alternative definitions of growth and removals and implications for forest sustainability , 2008 .

[10]  R. W. Brinker,et al.  Machine Rates for Selected Forest Harvesting Machines , 2002 .

[11]  Giuseppe Zimbalatti,et al.  Firewood cable extraction in the southern Mediterranean area of Italy , 2016 .

[12]  Fengli Zhang,et al.  Life-cycle energy and GHG emissions of forest biomass harvest and transport for biofuel production in Michigan , 2015 .

[13]  Aidin Parsakhoo,et al.  Efficiency and Cost Analysis of Forestry Machinery Usage in Hyrcanian Forests of Iran , 2009 .

[14]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[15]  E. M. . Bilek,et al.  Machine cost analysis using the traditional machine-rate method and ChargeOut! , 2009 .

[16]  Ajit K. Srivastava,et al.  Environmental impacts of roundwood supply chain options in Michigan: life-cycle assessment of harvest and transport stages , 2014 .

[17]  Tom N. Kalnes,et al.  Life cycle assessment of electricity generation using fast pyrolysis bio-oil , 2011 .