Document


Title

Comparisons of two methods of harvesting biomass for energy
Document Type: Journal Article
Author(s): William F. Watson; Bryce J. Stokes; I. W. Savelle
Publication Year: 1986

Cataloging Information

Keyword(s):
  • cost analysis
  • harvesting
Topic(s):
Region(s):
Partner Site(s):
Record Maintained By:
Record Last Modified: November 9, 2015
FRAMES Record Number: 7593

Description

ANNOTATION: This study focuses on two harvesting methods for utilization of understory biomass that were tested against a conventional harvesting method to determine relative costs. The conventional harvesting method tested removed all pine 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger and hardwood sawlogs as tree length logs. The two intensive harvesting methods were a one-pass and a two-pass method. In the one-pass method, all material 1 inch DBH and larger was simultaneously harvested. With the two-pass method, the energy wood (same description as in the one-pass) was harvested in a first pass through the stand, and the commercial size wood being removed as tree length logs was harvested in a second pass. ABSTRACT: Two harvesting methods for utilization of understory biomass were tested against a conventional harvesting method to determine relative costs. The conventional harvesting method tested removed all pine 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger and hardwood sawlogs as tree length logs. The two intensive harvesting methods were a one-pass and a two-pass method. In the one-pass method, all material 1 inch DBH and larger was simultaneously harvested. Pines 1 to 6 inches DBH and hardwoods 11 inches DBH and less were chipped for energy wood and all other stems were logged tree length. With the two-pass method, the energy wood (same description as in the one-pass) was harvested in a first pass through the stand, and the commercial size wood being removed as tree length logs was harvested in a second pass. The conventional harvesting system recovery averaged 52 percent of the standing biomass while the one-pass and two-pass methods recovery averaged 85 percent and 76 percent of the standing biomass, respectively. The conventional system had an average harvesting cost of $8.75 per green ton onto the log truck while the one-pass and two-pass methods had average costs onto log trucks and chip vans of $7.60 and $8.85 per green ton. Both the one-pass and two-pass methods produced energy chips into vans at a cost which was well below the value of the material as a fuel source at the mill.

Online Link(s):
Citation:
Watson, W.F.; Stokes, B.J.; Savelle, I.W. 1986. Comparisons of two methods of harvesting biomass for energy. Forest Products Journal 36(4):63-68.