4.7 Article

Woody biomass availability for bioethanol conversion in Mississippi

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 492-503

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.021

Keywords

Logging residues; Mill residues; Mississippi; Production costs; Small-diameter trees; Urban waste

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated woody biomass from logging residues, small-diameter trees, mill residues, and urban waste as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol conversion in Mississippi. The focus on Mississippi was to assess in-state regional variations and provide specific information of biomass estimates for those facilities interested in locating in Mississippi. Supply and cost of four woody biomass sources were derived from Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) information, a recent forest inventory conducted by the Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory, and primary production costs. According to our analysis, about 4.0 million dry tons of woody biomass are available for production of up to 1.2 billion liters of ethanol each year in Mississippi. The feedstock consists of 69% logging residues, 21% small-diameter trees, 7% urban waste, and 3% mill residues. of the total, 3.1 million dry tons (930 million liters of ethanol) can be produced for $34 dry ton(-1) or less. Woody biomass from small-diameter trees is more expensive than other sources of biomass. Transportation costs accounted for the majority of total production costs. A sensitivity analysis indicates that the largest impacts in production costs of ethanol come from stumpage price of woody biomass and technological efficiency. These results provide a valuable decision support tool for resource managers and industries in identifying parameters that affect resource magnitude, type, and location of woody biomass feedstocks in Mississippi. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available