IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v11y2018i2p293-d128768.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technoeconomic and Policy Drivers of Project Performance for Bioenergy Alternatives Using Biomass from Beetle-Killed Trees

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Campbell

    (Department of Economics, University of Montana, Liberal Arts Room 407, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT 59812, USA)

  • Nathaniel M. Anderson

    (U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 East Beckwith, Missoula, MT 59801, USA)

  • Daren E. Daugaard

    (Cool Planet Energy Systems, 6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Greenwood Village, CO 80111, USA)

  • Helen T. Naughton

    (Department of Economics, University of Montana, Liberal Arts Room 407, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT 59812, USA)

Abstract

As a result of widespread mortality from beetle infestation in the forests of the western United States, there are substantial stocks of biomass suitable as a feedstock for energy production. This study explored the financial viability of four production pathway scenarios for the conversion of beetle-killed pine to bioenergy and bioproducts in the Rocky Mountains. Monte Carlo simulation using data obtained from planned and existing projects was used to account for uncertainty in key technoeconomic variables and to provide distributions of project net present value (NPV), as well as for sensitivity analysis of key economic and production variables. Over a 20-year project period, results for base case scenarios reveal mean NPV ranging from a low of −$8.3 million for electric power production to a high of $76.0 million for liquid biofuel with a biochar co-product. However, under simulation, all scenarios had conditions resulting in both positive and negative NPV. NPV ranged from −$74.5 million to $51.4 million for electric power, and from −$21.6 million to $246.3 million for liquid biofuels. The potential effects of economic trends and public policies that aim to promote renewable energy and biomass utilization are discussed for each production pathway. Because the factors that most strongly affect financial viability differ across projects, the likely effects of particular types of policies are also shown to vary substantially.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Campbell & Nathaniel M. Anderson & Daren E. Daugaard & Helen T. Naughton, 2018. "Technoeconomic and Policy Drivers of Project Performance for Bioenergy Alternatives Using Biomass from Beetle-Killed Trees," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:2:p:293-:d:128768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/2/293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/2/293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bridgwater, A. V. & Toft, A. J. & Brammer, J. G., 2002. "A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 181-246, September.
    2. Zhao, Xin & Yao, Guolin & Tyner, Wallace E., 2016. "Quantifying breakeven price distributions in stochastic techno-economic analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 318-326.
    3. Beagle, E. & Belmont, E., 2016. "Technoeconomic assessment of beetle kill biomass co-firing in existing coal fired power plants in the Western United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 429-438.
    4. Sarkar, Susanjib & Kumar, Amit & Sultana, Arifa, 2011. "Biofuels and biochemicals production from forest biomass in Western Canada," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 6251-6262.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elias Martinez-Hernandez & Myriam A. Amezcua-Allieri & Jorge Aburto, 2021. "Assessing the Cost of Biomass and Bioenergy Production in Agroindustrial Processes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Natarianto Indrawan & Betty Simkins & Ajay Kumar & Raymond L. Huhnke, 2020. "Economics of Distributed Power Generation via Gasification of Biomass and Municipal Solid Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Jesse D. Young & Nathaniel M. Anderson & Helen T. Naughton, 2018. "Influence of Policy, Air Quality, and Local Attitudes toward Renewable Energy on the Adoption of Woody Biomass Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Escobar, Neus & Laibach, Natalie, 2021. "Sustainability check for bio-based technologies: A review of process-based and life cycle approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    5. Campbell, Robert M. & Anderson, Nathaniel M. & Daugaard, Daren E. & Naughton, Helen T., 2018. "Financial viability of biofuel and biochar production from forest biomass in the face of market price volatility and uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 330-343.
    6. Linmao Ma & Jing Yu & Long Zhang, 2019. "An Analysis on Barriers to Biomass and Bioenergy Development in Rural China Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Cognitive Map," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Nathaniel Anderson & Hongmei Gu & Richard Bergman, 2021. "Comparison of Novel Biochars and Steam Activated Carbon from Mixed Conifer Mill Residues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cambero, Claudia & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2014. "Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives – A review of literature," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 62-73.
    2. Patel, Madhumita & Zhang, Xiaolei & Kumar, Amit, 2016. "Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1486-1499.
    3. Campbell, Robert M. & Anderson, Nathaniel M. & Daugaard, Daren E. & Naughton, Helen T., 2018. "Financial viability of biofuel and biochar production from forest biomass in the face of market price volatility and uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 330-343.
    4. Feng, Ping & Hao, Lifang & Huo, Chaofei & Wang, Ze & Lin, Weigang & Song, Wenli, 2014. "Rheological behavior of coal bio-oil slurries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 744-749.
    5. Mehrdad Massoudi & Ping Wang, 2013. "Slag Behavior in Gasifiers. Part II: Constitutive Modeling of Slag," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-32, February.
    6. Delivand, Mitra Kami & Barz, Mirko & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Sajjakulnukit, Boonrod, 2011. "Economic feasibility assessment of rice straw utilization for electricity generating through combustion in Thailand," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(11), pages 3651-3658.
    7. Hussain, C.M. Iftekhar & Norton, Brian & Duffy, Aidan, 2017. "Technological assessment of different solar-biomass systems for hybrid power generation in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 1115-1129.
    8. Mirkouei, Amin & Haapala, Karl R. & Sessions, John & Murthy, Ganti S., 2017. "A review and future directions in techno-economic modeling and optimization of upstream forest biomass to bio-oil supply chains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 15-35.
    9. Al-Kassir, A. & Gañán-Gómez, J. & Mohamad, A.A. & Cuerda-Correa, E.M., 2010. "A study of energy production from cork residues: Sawdust, sandpaper dust and triturated wood," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 382-386.
    10. Li, Chunshan & Suzuki, Kenzi, 2010. "Resources, properties and utilization of tar," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 905-915.
    11. Walsh, Michael J. & Gerber Van Doren, Léda & Shete, Nilam & Prakash, Akshay & Salim, Usama, 2018. "Financial tradeoffs of energy and food uses of algal biomass under stochastic conditions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 591-603.
    12. Ansari, Khursheed B. & Gaikar, Vilas G., 2019. "Investigating production of hydrocarbon rich bio-oil from grassy biomass using vacuum pyrolysis coupled with online deoxygenation of volatile products over metallic iron," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 305-318.
    13. Bhutto, Abdul Waheed & Bazmi, Aqeel Ahmed & Zahedi, Gholamreza, 2011. "Greener energy: Issues and challenges for Pakistan--Biomass energy prospective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 3207-3219, August.
    14. Ascher, Simon & Watson, Ian & You, Siming, 2022. "Machine learning methods for modelling the gasification and pyrolysis of biomass and waste," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Zhou, Wenji & Zhu, Bing & Chen, Dingjiang & Zhao, Fangxian & Fei, Weiyang, 2011. "Technoeconomic assessment of China’s indirect coal liquefaction projects with different CO2 capture alternatives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 6559-6566.
    16. Cambero, Claudia & Hans Alexandre, Mariane & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2015. "Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 59-72.
    17. Dodić, Siniša N. & Vasiljević, Tamara Zelenović & Marić, Radenko M. & Kosanović, Aleksandar J. Radukin & Dodić, Jelena M. & Popov, Stevan D., 2012. "Possibilities of application of waste wood biomass as an energy source in Vojvodina," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2355-2360.
    18. Nie, Yuhao & Bi, Xiaotao T., 2018. "Techno-economic assessment of transportation biofuels from hydrothermal liquefaction of forest residues in British Columbia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 464-475.
    19. Salman, Chaudhary Awais & Schwede, Sebastian & Thorin, Eva & Yan, Jinyue, 2017. "Enhancing biomethane production by integrating pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion processes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 1074-1083.
    20. Bilandzija, Nikola & Voca, Neven & Jelcic, Barbara & Jurisic, Vanja & Matin, Ana & Grubor, Mateja & Kricka, Tajana, 2018. "Evaluation of Croatian agricultural solid biomass energy potential," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 225-230.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:2:p:293-:d:128768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.