California Biomass Generation

7/31/2019 California Biomass Generation

1/19

Availability of Biomass Feedstock

California Biomass

GenerationAvailability of Biomass Feedstock

Investigation into the feasibility and costs of obtaining sufficient renewable Biomass

feedstock in California for the purpose of use in Generation of Electricity

19/02/2011

Rev 1 Draft


2/19


CALIFORNIA BIOMASS GENERATION

AVAILABILITY OF BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California has an abundance of biomass available although no official channels currently exist for accessing

much of this. It is currently up to the biomass developers to set up contracts wherever they can to secure a

reliable feedstock.

California has a large agricultural industry with many farms large enough to be eligible candidates as suppliers

of biomass feedstock or to directly use the biomass plant as an additional revenue stream. The Poultry

industry is already starting to investigate how they can benefit from the animal waste.

The forestry industry could greatly benefit from a more economical way of disposing of the biomass left over

from wildfire fuel prevention programs and are pushing for localized biomass plants to help with this.

Dedicated energy crops are a major research topic amongst the major agricultural universities. Land prices and

production costs can be higher than in other US states so it is important to find crops with high yields and low

maintenance and to attempt to extract the full potential from the crop in terms of electricity, biofuel and other

useful by-products.


3/19


CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

1 Introduction ............................................................. ................................................................. ....................... 4

2 Agricultural Residue ............................................................ ................................................................. ............ 5

3 Dedicated Crops .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Land Values (To Buy) .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Land Values (To Rent) ...................................................................................... ........................................... 11

3.3 Production Costs .............................................................. ................................................................. .......... 13

3.4 Energy Data ................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Financial Assistance Opportunities ....................................................... ...................................................... 14

4 Poultry Farms ........................................................... ................................................................. ..................... 15

5 Forestry ......................................................... ................................................................. ................................ 17

6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

d


4/19


1 INTRODUCTION

The concept of generating electricity from Biomass is not new to California. Biomass plants have been around

for more than a decade. In 2006, the governor at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger, created the first revision of

Californias Bioenergy action plan.This plan was to be the blueprint for Californias bioenergy goals and helps

to establish the necessary legislation to put this in place.

Unfortunately in the years from 2006 to 2009, the state only saw an additional 130MW of bio power capacity

added. During that time 60MW was forced to shutdown, often because of difficulties obtaining finance or

inability to adhere to Californias stringent clean air act.

The latest 2010 revision to the bioenergy action plan acknowledges the shortcomings and difficulties that

biomass developers have faced and have put in action legislative steps to ease the permitting hurdles that

were previously faced. By the end of 2011 we should start to see signs of the new legislative actions.

In addition the action plan makes a number of clear objectives:

1) Increase bio energy production at existing facilities

2) Construct new bioenergy facilities.

3) Integrate bioenergy facilities with biomass collection, processing, and treatment operations and use

multiple fuels in bio energy plants

4) Commercialize next generation Conversion technologies; thermochemical and biochemical conversion

processes that use a wide range of feedstock and make advances in air quality impact.

5) Remove statutory and regulatory hurdles.

C lif i h l l f i t t bl d bi ti I 2010 th t t t


5/19


2 AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE

California is at the heart of the US agricultural industry. The state leads the nation in over 70 different

commodities. In addition to this, California is the sole producer of 14 of these.


6/19



7/19


some monetary worth or even to provide the farmers with additional revenue streams, it might be financially

advantageous to the farms to increase the amount of the pruning they are doing.

Rice straw residue is also a major contender for use as a biomass feedstock. Rice is a major commodity in

California and due to the clean air policies farmers are not allowed to burn the rice straw. The cost to the

farmer for bailing and removing the residue from the farm can fall between $25 and $45 per acre, however

this does not mean the farmers will give it away for free. Biomass developers have tried this approach and

have found that the farmers do not like the idea of giving away the residue if someone is making money from

it. The price for collection would have to be negotiated on a farm-by-farm basis.

Specific data on agricultural residues is not available at this point in time but this information could beobtained directly from the farms.


8/19


3 DEDICATED CROPS

California does not have a history of growing energy crops so very little data exists about it. A large amount of

research is currently underway, by the major Agricultural institutions in California, into developing a market for

them. The main varieties being investigated at this stage are Sweet Soghum, Sugarbeet, sugarcane, miscanthus

and a variety of grasses. The tropical grasses, such as elephant grass and sugarcane are only suited to the

northern parts of the state. Wheat and sugarbeets have become very expensive commodities but there are

currently developers growing sugarbeats as a dedicated energy crop. Switchgrass has been very popular across

the entire US as it is a native grass and grows easily. Miscanthus is also popular but is not as suited to the

California climate. Utility grade Alfalfa is another strong candidate for California as it is already in production inlarge quantities.

California has a unique and varied climate, which makes it difficult to compare crop data from other states as a

reference for potential in California. For many of the investigated crops, California is able to produce at the

upper ends of the yield ranges.

3. 1 LAND VALUES (TO BUY)

The State of California is divided up into 8 agricultural districts, which are further divided into 58 counties.

California produces a large proportion of the entire countys agricultural commodities. California leads the

entire country in the production of almost 80 different commodities, including Hay (Alfalfa) and Rice. California

is also the sole (99% or greater) producer of 14 commodities, including; Almonds, Grapes (raisins), Peaches and

Dates.

Due to a number of high producing counties (Fresno, Kern, Tulare, etc), average values for various statistics for


9/19


California has the most highly valued irrigated cropland in the US due to California producing such a large

percentage of the US high value food commodities.

State Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated

($ / Acre) ( / Ha)

California $11,100.00 22,506.36

Arizona $8,000.00 16,220.80

Florida $6,700.00 13,584.92

New Mexico $5,500.00 11,151.80

Utah $5,050.00 10,239.38Washington $4,500.00 9,124.20

Idaho $3,800.00 7,704.88

Oregon $3,620.00 7,339.91

Georgia $3,300.00 6,691.08

Missouri $3,120.00 6,326.11

Colorado $3,100.00 6,285.56

Nebraska $3,050.00 6,184.18Montana $2,700.00 5,474.52

Arkansas $2,250.00 4,562.10

Mississippi $1,970.00 3,994.37

Wyoming $1,930.00 3,913.27

Texas $1,700.00 3,446.92

Louisiana $1,700.00 3,446.92

K $1 550 00 3 142 78


10/19


State Agricultural Pastureland($ / Acre) ( / Ha)

New Jersey $14,200.00 28,791.92

Other States $5,820.00 11,800.63

Georgia $5,400.00 10,949.04

Florida $5,050.00 10,239.38

Virginia $4,500.00 9,124.20

North Carolina $4,340.00 8,799.78Tennessee $3,600.00 7,299.36

Ohio $3,000.00 6,082.80

South Carolina $2,900.00 5,880.04

California $2,850.00 5,778.66

Illinois $2,620.00 5,312.31

Pennsylvania $2,500.00 5,069.00

Kentucky $2,440.00 4,947.34Indiana $2,410.00 4,886.52

Michigan $2,400.00 4,866.24

Arkansas $2,300.00 4,663.48

Louisiana $2,100.00 4,257.96

Wisconsin $2,020.00 4,095.75

Th t bl b l h th l i ti i l d l h i d t th C t L l Thi t bl h


11/19


Sacramento Valley Solano 97,638 $4,934 10,004

Northeast Modoc 95,139 $1,459 2,958

Siskiyou-Shasta Siskiyou 90,488 $2,501 5,071

The table below shows the largest agricultural counties by land area that have a land asset value less than USD

$5000 per acre.

District County Cropland Harvested &

IrrigatedValue

(Acres) ($ / Acre) ( / Ha)

San Joaquin Valley Kern 756,645 $4,626 9,380

Sacramento Valley Colusa 268,737 $3,979 8,068

Central Coast Monterey 224,333 $4,645 9,418

Sacramento Valley Glenn 222,803 $4,823 9,779

Sacramento Valley Solano 97,638 $4,934 10,004

Northeast Modoc 95,139 $1,459 2,958

Siskiyou-Shasta Siskiyou 90,488 $2,501 5,071

Central Coast San Luis Obispo 78,279 $4,546 9,217

Sacramento Valley Tehama 51,546 $3,184 6,456

Northeast Lassen 37,812 $1,383 2,804

Central Coast San Benito 29,362 $2,787 5,651

$


12/19


2009 Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated $350 710

2008 Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated $360 730

2010 Agricultural Cropland, Non-Irrigated $50 101



State Agricultural Cropland, Irrigated

($ / Acre) ( / Ha)

California $345 699.52

Washington $245 496.76

Florida $230 466.35

Hawaii $210 425.80

Indiana $195 395.38

Iowa $193 391.33

Oregon $190 385.24

Illinois $184 373.08

Kentucky $180 364.97

Wisconsin $177 358.89

Nebraska $170 344.69

Michigan $160 324.42


13/19


Oregon $80 162.21

Tennessee $76 154.10

Michigan $75 152.07

Mississippi $72 145.99

South Dakota $72 144.97

Washington $70 141.93

Louisiana $66 133.82

California $50 101.38

3. 3 PRODUCTION COSTS

Cost per acre to produce corn silage in the San Joaquin Valley:

Harvest: Planting is done in April and harvested in September.

Yields: 30 ton/acre at 70% humidity.

Operation Cash and Labour Cost per acre

Operation

Time

(Hrs/A)

Labour

Cost

Fuel, Lube &

Repairs

Material

Cost

Custom/

RentTotal Cost

Cultural:


14/19


15/19


4 POULTRY FARMS

It seems to be difficult to get consistent information on poultry farming in California. According to 1997 Census

data California was producing 1,061,153 tons of dry manure from poultry farms per year.

State Farms

(number)

Animals

(animal units)

Dry Manure

(tons)

N. Carolina 4,207 661,234 1,775,979

Arkansas 5,591 641,788 2,008,041

Georgia 3,414 466,895 1,646,859

California 1,462 396,704 1,061,153

Minnesota 2,002 381,789 840,082Alabama 3,606 379,344 1,359,848

Texas 5,715 323,447 966,731

Virginia 2,115 291,686 772,619

Missouri 3,732 258,250 682,316

Mississippi 2,172 236,578 855,935

Pennsylvania 3,366 227,860 622,987

Indiana 1,616 190,971 465,663

Ohio 2,652 179,445 479,506

S. Carolina 945 175,027 476,066

Iowa 1,831 152,157 387,558

Maryland 1,411 121,487 427,538

Unfortunately the number of animals is given in animal units (AU). Each animal unit represents 1000 lb of

animal. For example 1 AU = 250 Layer Chickens or 455 Broiler chickens. Without the proportional relationship

between the different types of bird it is impossible to calculate the actual number of birds from the data.

Without this it is difficult to know the amount of manure produced per bird.

The table below is taken from a Californian study showing the amount of dry manure in tonnes/year. These

fi f 1990 i


16/19


As you can see, there seems to be significant discrepancies in the number of poultry farms between the two

data sets.

However, the 2007 census data gives a total inventory of all types of poultry at around 70 million animals. If

we use the table above and assume each farm has the maximum number of birds in its particular category (i.e

the most conservative estimate possible) we will find that of the 5,098 farms, 5,061 farms have an inventory

between 1 and 99,999 giving a total maximum inventory of 2,200,000 birds.

That means that just 37 farms in California own 68 million birds, so it would seem that a large concentration of

the total available dry manure can come from just a few farms.

If we calculate the amount of manure for a farm of 100,000 birds using the same ratios of bird types in the

1990 data we only get about 1000 tonne per year. A farm of 650,000 birds would therefore produce 6500

tonne.

Olivera Egg Ranch in California is estimated to have around 650,000 birds and has just recently commissioned

a 1.4MW fuel cell using the poultry manure as feedstock. The manure is turned into biogas using a digester

and then fed into the fuel cell. http://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cell.

One would have to assume that the 650,000 birds are producing considerably more than 6500 Tonne per year

in order to produce 1.4 MW.

There is no available data on what farms are doing with the manure, but given that it is rich in Nitrogen, much

of it is used or sold as fertilizer. In this respect the farmers already have the option of making some income off

the manure. It would be likely that the manure would need to be purchased from the farmer.

h l i ld b ll h i l h f Gi h hi h ili l i i i
http://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cellhttp://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cellhttp://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cellhttp://www.grist.org/article/a-chicken-poo-powered-fuel-cell


17/19


5 FORESTRY

Communities such as those on the North and South shores of the Tahoe basin and various locations along

Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges require regular hazardous fuel treatments to reduce wildfire risk

and support ecosystem function. Disposal of biomass residues to facilities located greater than 100 miles away

can nearly double project costs. Locating small bioenergy projects near forest biomass sources can reduce

treatment costs by producing energy and other useful byproducts, reduce GHG and particulate emissions from

open pile burning.

There is an estimated biomass technical potential of 18,000 GWh available in California forestry residue. This is

also considered the most costly form of biomass due to the often-remote locations and the difficulty in

physical collecting the biomass. Some estimates are as high as USD $55 for the collection of this type of

biomass. The costs are mainly fuel and labour costs for driving to the location for pickup.

There is a definite push for smaller biomass plants to be located very close to the forestry areas. It is unclear at

this stage whether there is any interest from the department of forestry and fire protection to purchase and

run the plants to reduce the residues from their wildfire fuel prevention programs.


18/19


6 CONCLUSION

California has clear goals for what the state wants to achieve with bioenergy and they are actively pursuing

these goals. At face value there appears to be an abundance of biomass available, however when we dig a bit

deeper we can see it is not so straightforward.

Agricultural residue is plentiful due to Californias substantial agricultural industry, but it is precisely because of

this industry of high value crops that we see high land values and production costs.

Dedicated crops have a similar problem. Biomass developers need low cost crops and high yields while the

farmers want high returns and high demand crops. Why will a farmer use their land to grow an energy crop

when they can get better returns with something else? One solution to this dilemma is for biomass developers

to form a cooperative and create the energy crop market themselves.

Some reports suggest the costs of collection of biomass can be as high as $50 per ton. At this price, this could

cripple a project. It is therefore important to keep the collection costs as low as possible. The obvious solution

is to situate the plant as close to the source of biomass as possible. The forestry industry appears to be pushing

this approach for utilizing the forestry woody biomass. My argument would be, why try to minimize the cost of

collection when you can get rid of it altogether if you sell the plant to the producer of the biomass? Poultry

farms have already shown an interest and Orchards could benefit as well. Given that the market prices paid for

selling the electricity to the grid are lower than the market price paid for buying electricity from the grid, the

returns from investing in a biomass plant may be recovered quicker if the farm or orchard is self-generating

rather than selling the electricity. The biomass plant simply becomes an additional revenue stream from a

product they are already creating and there are no costs of collection.

h f h d h h l d l f l f l h


19/19


Mike Sutherland | [email protected] | Page 19 of 19

APPENDIX A. HEAT CONTENT RANGES FOR BIOMASS

Heat Content Ranges for Various Biomass Fuels (dry weight basisa) with English and Metric Units

Fuel type & source English Metric

Higher Heating Value (HHV) Lower Heating Value (LHV) NCV Ash Content

Btu/lb MBtu/ton kJ/kg MJ/kg kJ/kg MJ/kg Kcal/kg %

Agricultural Residues

Corn stalks/stover 7,587 - 7,967 15.2 - 15.9 17,636 - 18,519 17.6 - 18.5 16,849 - 17,690 16.8 - 18.1 4,024 - 4,225 6%

Sugarcane bagasse 7,450 - 8,349 14.9 - 16.7 17,317 - 19,407 17.3 - 19.4 17,713 - 17,860 17.7 - 17.9 4,230 - 4,266 2-6%

Wheat straw 6,964 - 8,148 13.9 - 16.3 16,188 - 18,940 16.1 - 18.9 15,082 - 17,659 15.1 - 17.7 3,602 - 4,218

Hulls, shells, prunings 6,811 - 8,838 13.6 - 17.7 15,831 - 20,543 15.8 - 20.5

Fruit pits 8,950 - 10,000 17.9 - 20.0

Rice Straw residue 6,859 13.7 15,954 15.9 14,920 14.9 3,562 19%

Jatropha

Sweet Soghum 7,877 15.8 18,322 18.3 17,262 17.2 4,122 6%

Sugarbeet 7,610 15.2 17,700 17.7 16,600 16.6 3,964 5%

Herbaceous Crops

Miscanthus 7,782 - 8,417 15.7 - 16.8 18,100 - 19,580 18.1 - 19.6 17,818 - 18,097 17.8 - 18.1 4,255 - 4,322

Switchgrass 7,754 - 8,233 15.5 - 16.5 18,024 - 19,137 18.0 - 19.1 16,767 - 17,294 16.8 - 18.6 4,004 - 4,130 5-7%

Other grasses 7,818 - 7,984 15.6 - 16.0 18,185 - 18,570 18.2 - 18.6 16,909 - 17,348 16.9 - 17.3 4,038 - 4,143

Alfalfa 7,804 15.6 18,151 18.1 17,058 17.1 4,073 9%

Giant King Grass 18,400 18.4

Woody Crops

Black locust 8,409 - 8,582 16.8 - 17.2 19,546 - 19,948 19.5 - 19.9 18,464 18.5 4,409 1-2%

Eucalyptus 8,174 - 8,432 16.3 - 16.9 19,000 - 19,599 19.0 - 19.6 17,963 18.0 4,290 1%

Hybrid poplar 8,183 - 8,491 16.4 - 17.0 19,022 - 19,737 19.0 - 19.7 17,700 17.7 4,227 2%

Willow (2,3,6) 7,983 - 8,497 16.0 - 17.0 18,556 - 19,750 18.6 - 19.7 16,734 - 18,419 16.7 - 18.4 3,996 - 4,399

Forest Residues

Hardwood wood 8,017 - 8,920 16.0 - 17.5 18,635 - 20,734 18.6 - 20.7

Softwood wood 8,000 - 9,120 16.0 - 18.24 18,595 - 21,119 18.6 - 21.1 17,514 - 20,768 17.5 - 20.8 4,183 - 4,960

Urban Residues

MSW 5,644 - 8,542 11.2 - 17.0 13,119 - 19,855 13.1 - 19.9 11,990 - 18,561 12.0 - 18.6 2,863 - 4,433RDF 6,683 - 8,563 13.4 - 17.1 15,535 - 19,904 15.5 - 19.9 14,274 - 18,609 14.3 - 18.6 3,409 - 4,445

Newspaper 8,477 - 9,550 17 - 19.1 19,704 - 22,199 19.7 - 22.2 18,389 - 20,702 18.4 - 20.7 4,392 - 4,944

Corrugated paper 7,428 -7,939 14.9 - 15.9 17,265 - 18,453 17.3 - 18.5 17,012 17.0 4,063

Waxed cartons 11,727 - 11,736 23.5 - 23.5 27,258 - 27,280 27.3 25,261 25.3 6,033

California Biomass Generation

Documents

Transcript of California Biomass Generation