Assessment of Agricultural Residuals As Fuel For Power Generation For OPG - 2010

It has been a wonderful opportunity and thrilling
learning experience for our team at The University of

Western Ontario Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton
Campus, to research and write our second study
f or Ont ar i o Power Gener at i on exami ni ng
agr i cul tural bi omass
as a coal replacement.
This second report,
Assessment of Agricul-
tural Resi duals as a
Biomass Fuel for Ontario
Power Gener at i on,
follows and complements
our first report, Energy
Crop Options for Ontario
Power Generation.
Responding to todays concern for sustainable energy
and minimization of greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, requires very large projects with
unprecedented levels of individual and organizational
collaboration. The research team and extensive
network led by Dr. Aung Oo and Dr. Katherine Albion
exemplified productive collaboration, networking,
cooperation, and the required maintenance of focus
of large projects with diverse stakeholders. The
success of this project creates optimism for the
development of sustainable energy resources for
Ontario and Canada and the world.
The finding that 4.5 million metric tonnes (4.5X10
9
kg)
of above ground agricultural residuals can be annually
harvested in 2014, without depleting soil organic
matter, is very encouraging. This compares well with
Ontario Power Generations predicted annual need of 2
million metric tonnes. The maintenance of soil organic
matter is a core concept in the use of agricultural
residuals. Several opinions have been put forth that
the world is already beyond Peak Soil, a word play
on M.K. Hubberts peak oil, but conceptually identical.
The use of agricultural residuals is sustainable
only if soil organic matter is sustained.
On behalf of the entire research team at the Park, I
gratefully acknowledge the following individuals and
their affiliated organizations for their enormous
contributions to this project.
At Ontario Power Generation -- Phil Reinert and Rob
Mager provided a detailed scope of work that kept our
project on track. OPGs Steve Repergel helped with
media, and Nancy Wilson helped with the proposal
phase of this project. Our project guest specialists
and contributors -- Professor Paul Voroney, University
of Guel ph; Andrew Graham, Ontario Soil and
Crop I mprovement Associ at i on; Dal e Cowan
and Jim Campbell, AGRI S Co-operati ves; Sc ot t
Aber cr ombi e, Gildale Farms; Dr. Art Schaafsma,
University of Guel ph; and Andy Keir, AECOM.
The Park s r e searchers -- Dr. Aung Oo and Dr.
Katherine Albion. Contributors -- Tim Barkhouse,
l oc al f ar mer ; Ted Cowan, Ontari o Federation
of Agriculture; Matt McLean, SOBIN; Mahendra
Thimmanagari, OMAFRA; Marshall Kern, formerly
DOW Chemi cal ; Don Not t , Not t Fa r ms ; Ed
VanDeWynckel, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement
Association; Harold Rudy, OSCIA; Don McCabe,
Ontario Federation of Agriculture; Jim Abercrombie,
Gildale Farms; Geoff Whitifield, Queens Institute
for Energy and Environmental Policy; Stelios Arvelakis,
University of North Dakota; Ian Moncrieff, Canadian
Biofuel; Jagjit Singh, Uni versity of Guelph; Nick
Ruzich, Cennatek Bioanalytical Services; Professor
Franco Berruti and Professor Cedric Briens, ICFAR;
Joel Adams, Sara Bigelow, Caroline Craig and
John Kabel, The Research Park, and James Tost,
RoundTabl e Cr eat i ve Gr oup I nc . We al s o
acknowl edge support of t he NCE CECR Centre
of Excel l ence, The Bi oi ndust ri al I nnovation
Centre, and Dr. Murray McLaughlin of the Sustain-
able Chemistry Al l i ance duri ng t he proposal
development stage of this work.
Sincerely,
Dr. Don Hewson
Managing Director Industrial Liaison
University of Western Ontario Research Park,
Sarnia-Lambton Campus
Adjunct Research Professor
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering,
University of Western Ontario
Acknowledgements
A
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
Contents
Acknowledgements i
Executive Summary iii
Chapter I Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals 1
Chapter 2 Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals, Fuel Improvement
Options & Harvesting Technologies 14
Chapter 3 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals 36
Chapter 4 Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers 48
Chapter 5 Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel 63
Chapter 6 Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas 83
Chapter 7 Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations 88
References 95
Appendices
Appendix A OPG Agricultural Residuals Study Outline 100
Appendix B Ontario Agricultural Census Regions & Constituents 103
Appendix C Summary of Agricultural Statistics for Ontario 105
Appendix D Determination of Water-Soluble Alkali 109
Appendix E CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards 110
Appendix F Inspection Procedure for Ships that
Carry Grain and Grain Products 112
Appendix G Experimental Results on the Use of
Fuel Improvement Additives 115
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
Executive Summary
This study examines the sustainable removal of
agricultural residuals from Ontario farms for use as a
fuel alternative to coal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG).
The quantity of agricultural residuals which can be
sustainably harvested from Ontario farms was estimated
based on the preservation of soil organic matter (SOM)
and the minimization of soil erosion. Chemical charac-
teristics of agricultural residuals, fuel improvement
options and harvesting technologies were investigated
and assessed. The development of the supply chain
was analysed and included the identification of stake-
holders and recommended features. The cost of
biomass fuel from agricultural residuals in various
forms was estimated at the OPG gate. Potential issues
in the agricultural and political arenas were identified,
which may arise due to a development of the bio-
energy sector based on residuals. Conclusions regarding
the feasibility of the utilization of agricultural residuals
as biomass fuel at OPG generating stations were
drawn and recommendations are provided for the
implementation of the biomass fuel industry in Ontario.
A total of 4.5 million tonnes of agricultural residuals
can be sustainably harvested for energy applications
in Ontario in 2014.The sustainably harvestable amount
of residuals represents approximately 20% of the total
above ground agricultural residual biomass produced
in Ontario. This 20% quantity is based on the soil
organic matter budget analysis and soil erosion
calculation. The current provincial crop mix and yields
suggest that a total of 2.8 million tonnes of residuals
could have been sustainably harvested in 2009. For a
conservative average crop yield improvement of 1%
annually, the sustainably removable quantity of
residuals would increase to 4.5 million tonnes by 2014,
when OPG may require the biomass fuel. Corn stover
and cobs, cereal st r aws and soybean st over
al t ogether represent approximately 90% of the total
above ground residuals produced by Ontario field
crops. The sustainably harvestable quantity and type
of residual is farm-specific and depends on the
crop rotation, tillage practices, slope of the land,
availability of off-farm organic materials, SOM
l evel of t he l and and t he i ncor por at i on of
addi tional best farm management practices. In
Ontario, corn stover and cereal straws are expected
to be the major biomass fuels from agricultural
residuals due to their higher residual yields per hectare.
The nutrient content of agricultural residuals in their
natural state pose challenges to the combustion
process. However, a number of relatively simple fuel
improvement options are available which include
over-wintering, natural or controlled washing and the
use of additives. Corn cobs provide the best fuel qual-
ity of the major agricultural residuals in the province,
whereas corn stover and wheat straw contain higher
potassium and silicon contents, respectively. Natural
rain washing of agricultural residuals in the field is an
attractive option for fuel improvement and returns NPK
(Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) to the soil. NPK
and other nutrients in agricultural residuals may also
be recovered by existing and emerging technologies.
Phosphorus recovery techniques for municipal wastes
have the potential to recover NPK from agricultural
residuals. Chemical additives could also help improve
the fuel quality of residuals during combustion. A
promising fuel improvement process is the torrefaction
of biomass which produces a high quality fuel and can
be used in combination with other fuel improvement
options. Fuel improvement technologies are expected
to be commercialized once a strong market for biomass
fuel from agricultural residuals has been established.
There is a need to develop the residual biomass
fuel supply chain, specifically fuel aggregators and
processors across Ontario, to meet the OPG demand
in 2015. Agricultural residuals are presently available
as a feedstock since Ontarios farmers produce these
materials as a co-product of their crops each year.
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Cereal straws and soybean stover can be harvested
using existing farm equipment. Specialized farming
equipment, which is soon to be commercialized, to
harvest corn residuals is necessary for greater
feedstock supply. Construction of fuel aggregators
and processors may take up to 18 months. This fits
within the 4 years required to establish the entire
biomass fuel supply chain. Participation of farm
co-operatives, existing or new generation, in the
bi omass fuel business is the preferred option,
since it maximizes local community involvement.
Contracting with independent operators diversifies
t he supplier base for OPG. This option can be
coupl ed with farm co-operative suppliers. Third
party harvesti ng can play an important role in
t he Ont ar i o bi omass supply chain due to the
narrow harvesting time window for grain corn, the
largest residual producing crop.
The total costs of cereal straw and corn stover
pellets at the OPG gate are $6.00/GJ and $6.57/GJ,
respectively, with a total potential supply of 4.5 million
tonnes in 2014. Pellets from cereal straws offer the
lowest cost, however, the total supply of cereal straw
at this lower price is limited to 0.75 million tonnes due
to existing demands. Biomass fuel from agricultural
residuals is approximately 20% cheaper than from
energy crops due to lower raw feedstock costs. Pellets
from corn cobs and soybean stover have higher costs
compared to pellets from cereal straws and due to
lower yields per hectare. These economics may result
in farmers leaving low yielding residuals in the field for
SOM replenishment. Torrefied pellets are gaining
attention from biomass fuel consumers due to their
superior fuel quality along with better fuel handling
and storage properties. The establishment of commer-
cial scale torrefaction plants in Europe are expected
to lead to the deployment of this fuel improving and
processing technology in North America. The cost of
torrefied biomass from agricultural residuals at the
OPG gate could be approximately 10% lower than
un-torrefied pellets, if the biomass is torrefied
prior to the pelletization process. This lower cost
is due to the reduced grinding, pelletization and
transportation costs of torrefied biomass. If the
biomass must be pelletized before it is torrefied,
the cost of torrefied pellets will be hi gher than
untorrefied pellets at the OPG gate.
Adoption of conservation tillage, use of best farm
management practices, and understanding the
relationship between different crop rotations and the
quantity of residuals sustainably removed, are critical
to the use of residuals in energy applications. To ease
concerns regarding soil degradation due to the
removal of residuals from the field, OPG should
collaborate with organizations such as the Ontario Soil
and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) and the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) to develop
guidelines and monitoring processes for sustainable
harvesting of agricultural residuals. Potential stake-
holders are aware of the risks associated with investing
in fuel aggregators and processors due to the current
low price of natural gas and the over capacity situation
of the Canadian biomass densification industry.
Investors, which may be farm co-operatives, need
a guaranteed market with long-term contracts and
attractive pricing to develop the new industry. Trade
agreements between the provinces and territo-
ries of Canada as well as the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) may require that OPG
considers biomass fuels sourced from outside the
province. This could be a potential trade dispute issue,
if the biomass fuels are sourced only from Ontario.
The benefits of utilizing agricultural residuals as a
biomass fuel includes the continued viability of the
agricultural sector, rural development and job
creation, enhanced income distribution, greenhouse
gas emission reductions and a basis for future
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
biorefinery infrastructure. These benefits should be
quantified and communicated to policy makers.
Biomass supply contracts should be in place approxi-
mately 4 years before the biomass supply is required.
This allows the development of the biomass supply
chain, especially biomass processing facilities. Some
risk-sharing mechanisms, such as linking a portion of
the biomass fuel supply to the price of crude oil,
may be required during the initial stages of supply
development. A biomass fuel specification should be
developed and modified in stages to allow for the
utilization of emerging fuel improvement technologies.
A number of fuel aggregators and processors can be
constructed with concerted efforts by all stakeholders
to meet the demand in 2015. However, there will likely
be a price premium associated with the rapid estab-
lishment of this new industry. OPG should explore the
option of acquiring biomass from sources outside the
province during the initial stage of industry development.
This will also allow for the continued development of
the residuals biomass supply chain in Ontario.
Dr. Don Hewson
Managing Director, Industrial Liaison
The University of Western Ontario Research Park
Dr. Katherine J. Albion
Project Researcher
Commercialization & Research Engineer
Dr. Aung Oo
Project Researcher
Commericalization Consultant
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Agriculture is an important economic sector in Ontario.
Approximately 50% of Canadas Class I and II lands are
located in the province. Farming activities produce
human food and animal feed, and generate significant
quantities of agricultural residuals each year.
In this chapter, a global review is provided on the use
of agricultural residuals for power generation. The
current demand for residuals in Ontario, generally
used for agriculture and livestock production, was
determined, and emerging technologies expected to
incorporate residuals as a feedstock were identified.
The current production of residuals in Ontario was
determined, and the major residual producing crops were
identified and evaluated as a potential biomass fuel.
1.1 Overview of the Use of Agricultural Residuals in
Power Generation
Biomass combustion is an emerging technology
around the globe. In many countries there are power
stations co-firing biomass with coal to generate
electricity. A number of generating stations are
currently in the process of conducting test burns of
various types of biomass and in different ratios with
coal. There are few dedicated biomass generating
stations, and these are generally small plants. The
majority of the power stations operate using a small
quantity of biomass combined with coal. Large
facilities often have the goal of complete conversion
to dedicated biomass facilities.
1.1.1 Drax Power Station
The Drax Power Station has the largest power generation
capacity in Western Europe, and produces 7% of the
United Kingdoms electricity supply. The power station is
located near the town of Drax, in North Yorkshire,
England. Drax has a total generation capacity of 3,960
MW, including co-fire generation (Drax Group plc, 2010a).
In 2009, Drax burned 381,000 tonnes of biomass
as a 10% replacement of coal in co-firing operations.
Biomass burned consisted of pelleted wheat straw,
willow, miscanthus and wood chips. Total power
production from biomass was 475 GWh. (Drax Group
plc, 2010a).
Drax has proposed the construction of three dedicated
biomass generating facilities, each with a generating
capacity of 290 MW. Two of these plants will be located
in the Port of Immingham with the third adjacent to
the existing Drax coal fired plant. It is expected that
1.3 million tonnes per year will be required to support
each dedicated biomass facility. Drax plans to source
biomass in the form of sustainable wood-based
products, forestry residues and residual agricultural
products. Drax has secured a ready and flexible supply
of raw materials from producer groups in the forestry,
farming and agricultural industries. Biomass is
expected to be acquired from within the United Kingdom
as well as imported. A policy has been developed to
ensure that the imported biomass has been produced
in a sustainable manner (Drax Group plc, 2010b). The
total renewable generation capacity of the Drax
biomass combustion operations will be 1,400 MW, which
includes co-firing operations and the construction of
new facilities (Drax Group plc, 2010a).
It was anticipated that by the end of 2010, that
three new 290 MW biomass dedicated plants
would be approved. However, in February 2010, it
was reported that these initiati ves were on hold
due to low government subsi dies, low prices of
coal and natural gas and decreased revenues. It
was less expensive to run gas-fired stations due to
a lower electricity demand (Mason, 2010).
Chapter1
Description & Overview of Agricultural Residuals
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
1.1.2 Elean Power Station
The Elean Power Station is the worlds largest straw
fired power plant, located in Ely, Cambridge, UK, and
is owned by Energy Power Resources (EPR) Ely Ltd.
This power plant began commercial operation in 2000.
It is a 38 MW plant with an electrical output of 270 GWh
annually (EPR, 2010). It burns 200,000 tonnes of cereal
straw and a small amount of natural gas annually.
The main feedstock is straw from wheat, oats, rye and
barley, however, test burns have been conducted using
miscanthus and oil seed rape.
1.1.3 Show Me Energy
Show Me Energy Co-operati ve is a non-profit,
producer-owned co-operative formed to support the
development of renewable biomass applications in
Centerview, Missouri. The co-operative was initially
founded with 400 members to construct a biomass
pelletization plant. Approximately $8 million was
capitalized to build the plant with the capacity to
process 75,000 tons per year, and was subsequently
expanded to produce 150,000 tons per year of biomass
pellets. Construction of the plant began in May 2007,
and the first pellets were shipped in July 2008.
The co-operative membership expanded in early
2010 to approximately 650 members. The increase in
membership was to generate capital for the increased
production of biomass pellets and for future
production of cellulosic biofuels (Tietz, 2010).
The bi omass pel l eti zed by Show Me Energy
Co-operative includes switchgrass, native grasses,
corn stover, sorghum residue and weeds. Essentially,
the co-operative accepts all biomass materials,
however, the payment made to farmers for the
materials is based on the energy value of the biomass.
Generally, the price paid to farmers ranges from $45-
60 per ton of biomass. The United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) has developed the Biomass
Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) to encourage farmers
and landowners to develop the biomass supply chain
as well as accelerate energy independence, rural
economic development and renewable sources
of energy. BCAP through the USDA Farm Service
Agency assists biomass producers by providing
matching payments for the collection, harvest,
storage and transportation of eligible biomass
deli vered to approved facilities for conversion into
biofuels. Show Me Energy was the first facility in
the United States to receive matching payments for
biomass acquisition (Library USDA, 2010). This
program provides farmers with a total of $90-120
per ton for their biomass.
Show Me Ener gy wi l l onl y accept bi omass
i f sust ai nability practices are implemented. For
agricultural crop residuals such as corn stover, 30%
of the residual materials must remain on the field. For
prairie grasses, a killing frost must occur before the
harvest, and grasses must not be harvested around
water courses to minimize soil erosion (Ebert, 2008)
Large customers of Show Me Energy include
Northwest Missouri State University with installed
commercial biomass burners for campus heating. The
biomass pellets have also been tested by a local
electrical utility for co-firing with coal to produce
electricity (Tietz, 2010). The Kansas City Power
and Light Sibley Generating Station has conducted
co-firing tests of Show Me Energys pellets at co-firing
concentrations of up to 40-50% biomass with coal
(Flick, 2009).
1.1.4 Global Biomass Combustion
There are more than 200 generating stations around
the world using biomass as a fuel. The majority of
these plants burn wood and wood residuals to generate
electricity and have a capacity of less than 50 MW. In
Canada, there are more than 20 independent power
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
producers, mainly in pulp and paper mills which
process spent liquor, bark and wood residuals. In
Ontario, there are 4 co-generation plants which
combined produce 56 MW of power from wood
biomass. In the United States, there are more than 60
power plants co-firing biomass and coal with a total
co-firing capacity of 5,080 MW. The fuel sources
are mainly paper, wood products, corn, sugar and
agricultural residuals. In Europe, there are more than
100 generating stations co-firing biomass and coal
(Bradley, 2009).
As part of power generation initiatives, a number of
operations are incorporating a small percentage of
biomass, generally 10-30%, into the coal operations.
The fuel most widely used is wood and wood based
materials. Agricultural residuals and energy crops have
mainly been utilized in small quantities or in test burns.
There is a small scale power plant in the United Kingdom
which uses cereal straws as the feedstock to generate
electricity. There are no large scale dedicated biomass
power plants burning agricultural residuals worldwide.
1.2 Current and Emerging Demands
The bio-based industry is an emerging business due to
the development of many new products and business
processes that focus on the use of biomass as a raw
material. Along with these new developments, are the
traditional uses of biomass such as animal bedding,
animal feed and crop production. All these uses are
important to consider when determining all the amount
of agricultural residual material available in Ontario,
without depletion of the supply for traditional uses.
1.2.1 Current Uses of Agricultural Residuals
Currently, wheat straw is the most widely used agricul-
tural residual in Ontario. Wheat straw has traditionally
been used by livestock and in agriculture. Other residuals,
such as corn stover or corn cobs, are not currently used
on a large scale. Straw supply and price fluctuations
depend on the demand, availability, and intended
use in specific geographical regions. Wheat straw has
also recently become a feedstock for the production of
cellulosic ethanol in the Ottawa region for Iogen
Corporation. Table 1.1 highlights specific applications
and quantities of wheat straw currently used in
Ontario. The estimates provided indicate that
approximately 1.5 million tonnes of wheat straw are
consumed in Ontario each year, mainly in the agricul-
tural and livestock sectors. The values presented in
Table 1.1 are based on data provided by Statistics
Canada for the Province of Ontario, statistics on the
OMAFRA web site as well as personal communication
with stakeholders in the agricultural community.
1. 2. 1. 1 Agri cul tural Resi dual s Consumpti on
by Ani mals
As of January 2010, the inventory of cattle in Canada
was at the lowest level in 15 years. However, in 2009,
the number of cattle increased in Ontario by 2.2%
Use
Quantity
(tonne/year)
Livestock
Agriculture & Horticulture
Biofuels
Cattle Bedding
Horse Bedding
Cattle Feed
Sheep Feed
Ginseng Production
Strawberry Production
Mushroom Production
Cellulosic Ethanol
Total Wheat Straw Usage in Ontario
1,154,200
248,600
48,800
1,300
51,500
11,500
2,400
9,125
1,527,425
Table 1.1 Applications and Quantities of Wheat Straw
Used in Ontario
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
from the 2008 inventory. The number of sheep in
Canada also declined between 2009 and 2010. The
reduction in cattle is due to market uncertainty and
rising input costs over the years. Draughts early in
the decade affected water and forage supplies
and damaged pastures. The discovery of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease)
in 2003 stalled the Canadian cattle industry, and
resulted in a slow recovery of export markets,
increased processing and testing costs and low market
prices for beef cattle. In 2007, the production of grain
ethanol resulted in higher prices of feed grain which
increased the cost of feed for livestock producers. The
export market for Canadian livestock was reduced
due to the introduction of the Country of Origin
Labelling regulations and the appreciation of the
Canadian dollar (Statistics Canada, 2010).
The statistics in Table 1.1 were used to determine the
amount of residuals used by livestock and other
animals as bedding and feed. The trends and factors
influencing the number of animals in Canada, and
specifically Ontario, can be used to predict the future
quantities of residuals that may be required by animals.
It is expected that the number of cattle in the province
will stabilize following the decline of the last 15 years.
(i) Agricultural Residuals as Animal Bedding
Animal bedding provides two essential purposes for
cattle and horses. The first is as protection from severe
weather including snow, ice and wind, and allows the
animal to reduce its surface area exposed to the
elements to minimize the risk of hypothermia and
frostbite in the winter months. Bedding is important
throughout the life of the animal and it is essential for
protection and survival of the calf. Secondly, the use
of bedding lowers the nutritional requirements of the
animal. Alternative bedding materials have been used
for cattle which include soybean stover, corn stover
and barley and oat straws. The best steer weight gain
occurred when wheat straw was used as bedding,
whereas for heifers, all bedding materials resulted in
similar weight gain (Ringwall, 2009). Industrial
waste materials have also been considered for use as
animal bedding as well as forestry by-products
such as wood chips and wood shavings, and switch-
grass. OMAFRA suggests that beef cattle require
approximately 4 lb/head/day of bedding (Kains et al.,
1997). This quantity was assumed also for dairy cattle
to determine the total amount of bedding required
for all Ontario cattle.
Bedding impacts the cost of housing the animals, the
labour involved in stall cleaning, manure storage
capacity and nutrient management. A number of
bedding materials are available for horses including
pine shavings, wheat straw, peat moss and coir.
Ultimately, it is the disposal cost of the bedding
material that governs the material choice. Straw
bedding is recycled to the mushroom industry. Wheat
straw also keeps horses clean and does not produce a
large amount of dust compared to other bedding
materials (Molnar and Wright, 2006).
(ii) Agricultural Residuals as Animal Feed
Small quantities of agricultural residuals are used as
animal feed, specifically for cattle and sheep. Small
amounts of wheat straw have been included in horse
feed. Straw contains little nutritional value for horses,
but is a source of fibre. Straw bedding allows the
horse to chew and reduces wood-chewing behaviour,
if all other nutritional requirements are met (Ralston
and Wright, 2005).
Animals have a diet of grains and forages. Some
animals, including cattle and sheep will also consume
residuals as feed. Statistics Canada has provided an
estimate of li vestock feed requirements, which
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
i ncludes roughages. Roughages consist of straw,
by-products, beet pulp and vegetables wastes. For the
purpose of this study, 75% of mass of the roughages
was assumed to be straw, in order to determine the
amount of straw consumed by animals. Beef cattle
were found to consume the greatest amount of
roughages, followed by dairy cattle and sheep
(Statistics Canada, 2002).
In the winter months, straws and stovers can be used
as a component of cattle feed as these residuals are
available at fractions of the cost of hay and can be used
to dilute high quality forages to meet the nutritional
requirements of pregnant cows. Cereal straws can
be used as a filler and energy for beef cows. This is
applicable to cows that are healthy and are more than 6
weeks away from calving since they have the lowest
nutritional requirements of the herd. Oat and barley
straws have the highest energy contents and are
preferred by cows, followed by wheat straw. OMAFRA
recommends that a 60-40 straw-hay mix can be sup-
plied as feed, and supplemented by energy and protein
(Hamilton, 2009). Corn stalkage has similar nutritional
content and fibre digestibility to wheat straw and is
under utilized as a low quality feedstuff in beef cow
feed. OMAFRA does not advise the use of a high
quantity (40% dry matter of the feed or greater) of corn
stalkage included in the feed for beef cows as it is not
palatable resulting in less feed consumption by cows
and reduced body weight (Wood and Swanson, 2009).
1.2.1.2 Use of Agricultural Residuals in Agriculture
and Horticulture
Historically, wheat straw has been the widely used
residual in agriculture and horticulture. Recently in
Ontario, with the emergence of ginseng production,
this has become the major application of straw for crop
production. Wheat straw is used as a mulch and bed-
ding medium in horticulture and for specialty crops.
Ginseng is a slow-growing herbaceous perennial plant
which is harvested 3-5 years after seeding. Ginseng is
cultivated for its root which is dried and sold whole,
powdered or sliced. It is one of the most widely used
medicinal herbs in the world. The ginseng root is used
in a wide range of products, including tea, candies,
beverages, tablets and capsules. One reason for the
increased demand is due to its use as a natural
supplement to help prevent the common cold and flu.
North American ginseng is also exported to Asian
markets to complement the benefits of Asian ginseng
(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2007).
Commercial cultivation of North American ginseng
began in Canada in the late 1890s, but it was not until
the early 1980s that ginseng production experienced
exponential growth due to lucrative profits. Ginseng
is an emerging crop in southern Ontario, specifically
in the sand plains north of Lake Erie where tobacco
was traditionally grown. Ginseng production has
increased dramatically in recent years to 2,896 ha
in 2006, from 1,813 ha in 2001. More than half of
the ginseng producing land is in Haldimand-Norfolk
County with Brant and Oxford Counties being the
next largest producers respectively (Statistics
Canada, 2007).
Production of ginseng requires significant quantities
of straw. One acre of ginseng production requires
approximately 7 tonnes of wheat straw, in order to
cover the crop with 2 to 4 inches of straw. This straw
is used as a mulch for moisture retention and protection
of the ginseng root (Schooley, 2009).
Strawberry production in Canada has remained
relatively stable since 1995, at approximately 25,000
30,000 tonnes per year. Ontario produces 31% of
Canadas strawberry crop, and can be grown throughout
the province (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008).
Strawberries are a shallow rooted perennial plant that
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
are grown in every province of Canada. Straw is used
in the production of strawberries to protect the plant
against winter temperatures. Cold temperatures result
in damage to the plant roots, crowns and flower buds
and soil freezing and thawing lifts plants out of the soil
resulting in root breakage. Wheat, oat or rye straws
are ideal materials to protect the strawberry plant. The
straw requirement for winter protection is between 2.3-
3.2 tonnes/acre (Fisher, 2004). Straw is preferred to
other mulch materials such as hay and grasses which
lead to weeds or smother the strawberry plants. After
the winter, three-quarters of the straw is placed between
the rows of strawberry plants to prevent weed growth
and to keep the berries clean. A small amount of straw,
2-3 inches, can cover the plants during blossoming for
frost protection (Ricketson, 2004).
Canada has over 100 mushroom farms across the
country and produces approximately 105 million kg of
mushrooms annually. Approximately 57% of the
mushrooms grown are produced in Ontario. The
majority of the mushrooms produced are sold fresh in
Canada. Fresh mushrooms are also exported to the
United States, and canned mushrooms are exported to
China (Mushrooms Canada, 2010).
Straw is a significant component of mushroom
growth medium. The mushroom growing medium
is composed of straw, horse and chicken manures and
gypsum. Also included in horse manure is the horse
bedding which is mainly straw. The growing area of
mushrooms has been increasing over the last 10 years
from 129,447 m
2
of growing area in 2001 to more than
418,000 m
2
in 2009 (Statistics Canada, 2007, 2010).
1.2.1.3 Use of Agricultural Residuals as a Biofuel
Iogen Corporation is a cellulosic ethanol producer with
a demonstration facility in the Ottawa region. This
small-scale facility was designed to process 20-30
tonnes/day of feedstock to produce 5,000 6,000 L/day
of ethanol. The ethanol produced by Iogen is used by
Shell in their fuel applications. The ethanol is also used
to partially power Ferraris Formula 1 Grand Prix race
car (Taylor, 2010).
The main feedstock used to produce this cellulosic
ethanol is wheat straw. The process has also been
tested using corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, oat
and barley straw, sugarcane bagasse and hard wood
chips. Wheat straw is collected by Double Diamond
Farms from wheat producers in northern and eastern
Ontario and shipped to Iogen. A full scale plant is
planned to be constructed in Saskatchewan. This plant
will use cereal straw as the feedstock and 600 farmers
have agreed to supply the facility (Taylor, 2010).
1.2.2 Emerging Uses of Agricultural Residuals
There are many emerging uses of agricultural residuals
that may result in competition for this feedstock
material. Many applications are under development
to utilize residuals as a feedstock for the production
of bioenergy, biochemicals and bioproducts.
Currently, corn stover is not widely used for the
production of bio-energy or bio-products. Processes
are under development for many new products and
fuels but are not yet at the large commercial
scale. These applications include:
Biocomposites: the fibre from corn stover is
used in the production of bio-composites for
the automoti ve and bui l di ng i ndustri es.
The corn stover fibres reinforce a resin matrix
to replace composites of fibreglass, carbon fibre
and talc.
Bioethanol: ethanol is produced from lignocell-
ulose in the corn stover. This technology
is currently expensi ve, but is expected to
become l ess expensive as the technology
is improved and scaled up.
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
Pulp and paper: corn stover fibre is used in the
production of paper to replace wood fibre and
accounts for 5-10% of the worldwide paper
production. There are many disadvantages to
using corn stover in the pulp and paper
industry including the seasonal availability,
chemical recovery challenges, pulp brightness
and the requirement of large quantities of water
and energy during production.
Animal feed: OMAFRA has suggested that ewes
and wintering beef cows graze corn fields over
the winter months. This allows the animals to
eat corn kernels and small cobs that passed
through the combine. This provides the animals
with increased nutrients early in the season
when more crop leftovers are in the field and
before the biomass is weathered.
Corn cobs are a residual receiving much attention and
many applications are under development for this
underutilized residual:
Chemicals: furfural can be produced from
corn cobs. Furfural is a solvent used in the
petrochemical industry to produce resins in
fibreglass manufacturing. To date, it is the high-
est valued chemical produced from corn cobs.
Sand blasting: corn cobs are reduced to a fine
particle size and used as a replacement for sand
in sand blasting applications. The ground corn
cobs clean and strip wood surfaces and are used
as a mulch following the blasting application.
Bioethanol: many ethanol producers, such as
Greenfield Ethanol, are developing technology
to use corn cobs as a feedstock for cellulosic
ethanol production. Although not yet at the
commercial stage, it is expected that cellulosic
ethanol will become mainstream in the future.
Wheat straw is widely used in agriculture, however, in
addition to ethanol production, bio-based products are
also being developed using wheat straw as a feedstock.
Automotive components: the automotive industry
is using wheat straw in reinforced plastics in
side cars, trucks and SUVs. The Ford Motor
Company is using 20% wheat straw as a bio-filler
in the third row storage bins of their Ford Flex
vehicles. These SUVs are built in Fords Oakville,
Ontario, assembly plant and the wheat straw is
supplied by 4 southern Ontario farms.
Barley straw applications have been developed,
however are not widely used. These applications include:
Algae control in ponds: barley is the only straw
that can control the formation of algae in ponds.
Barley must be supplied to the pond prior to
algae bloom growth, in an adequate dosage with
adequate aeration, proper location and depth,
and water circulation. Although the mechanism
behind this growth inhabitation is unknown, it
is thought that the type of phenolics or lignin is
important and effects breakdown or provides a
carbon source for increased microbial growth
which limits phosphorus update by the algae.
Housing insulation: the use of barley straw as an
insulation can double the R value of standard
homes. Straw bales are stacked in a similar
manner to bricks, off the ground. Homes with
straw insulation are finished with a common
brick or plaster exterior. Two-string bales are the
insulation standard, however, if larger bales are
used, it provides better insulation.
Agricultural residuals can also be used as a feed-
stock for thermochemical conversion technologies,
such as pyrolysis. The pyrolysis process produces
bio-oils, bio-chars and syngas. Bio-oils can be
upgraded for the producti on of fuel s and the
extraction of chemicals, syngas can be used as an
energy source and bio-chars may be used as a soil
amendment and activated carbon.
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
The future demand for agricultural residuals cannot
be predicted with high confidence. There are many
technologies that are currently under development
and undergoing scale-up and commercialization.
Many industries are interested in developing
processes that utilize biomass, including agricultural
residuals, to produce energy and products to replace
or supplement petroleum based feedstocks.
1.3 Above Ground Residuals Production in Ontario
Agriculture is a significant economic sector in Ontario.
The province is home to approximately 50% of
Canadas class I and II lands. Ontario also produces
about 75% of the nations soybeans. Figure 1.1
presents a snapshot of Ontarios agricultural land area
and its use. In Ontario, crop land represents 68% of the
total agricultural land in the province. The livestock
industry also has a critical role and generates close to
50% of the total farm cash receipts (OMAFRA, 2006).
The declining livestock industry, which is the major
consumer of agricultural residuals, may result in a
reduced demand for residuals. This would allow for
increased residual use in other applications such
as power generation.
Field crops are the largest share of crop land in the
province. Table 1.2 provides the harvested and
unharvested hectares of major field crops. These data
are the 2003-2009 average, sourced from OMAFRAs
field crops statistics. There is a small percentage
of field crops left unharvested every year due to
poor yields or other factors, and these unharvested
crops could contribute to bio-energy production. As
seen in Table 1.2, hay crops are the most widely
grown field crop followed by soybeans, grain corn and
winter wheat. Hay crops produce little above ground
residuals and do not allow for economic harvesting,
therefore, residuals used for energy applications
should be sourced from the other major crops. Table
1.3 provides estimates of the residual-to-crop ratio for
major field crops. Due to uneconomical harvesting,
residuals from hay crops and fodder corn are not
expected. Cereal crops such as winter wheat, barley
and oats have higher residual-to-crop ratios. Different
varieties of a particular field crop, for instance varieties
of winter wheat, have a range of residual-to-crop
ratios, however, the average values are considered
in Table 1.3 to simplify the estimate of the total
agricultural residuals produced in the province.
Based on the harvested and unharvested acreages of
major field crops and the estimated residual-to-crop
ratios given in Tables 1.2 and 1.3, the above ground
residuals production from each major crop are
calculated and presented in Table 1.4. Approximately
13.7 million tonnes of above ground residuals
are produced from field crops in Ontario. As high-
lighted in Table 1.4, grain corn, winter wheat and
soybeans are the major residual producing crops,
representing almost 90% of the total residuals
from field crops. Grain corn generates the
largest amount of residuals, nearly half of the
total above ground residuals in the province.
Field crops, which occupy 3.36 million hectares of a
total of 3.66 million hectares of crop land in Ontario,
are not the only crops grown in Ontario. Other crops
such as field vegetables, apples, grapes and other
fruits also produce small quantities of agricultural
residuals. Figure 1.2 shows the total hectares of other
crops in comparison with field crops and the average
above ground residual production estimates in
tonne/ha, including the expected moisture content at
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
Total agricultural land in Ontario: 5.38 Mha
Crop land: 3.66 Mha
Pasture land: 0.75 Mha
Christmas trees,
woodland, wetland: 0.75 Mha
Other: 0.22 Mha
Figure 1.1 Agricultural Land Use in Ontario
(OMAFRA Statistics)
Field Crops Hectares Harvested*
Un-Harvested Area*
(% of Hectares Harvested)
Hay
Soybeans
Grain corn
Winter wheat
Fodder corn
Barley
Spring wheat
Mixed grain
Dry field beans
Oats
Fall rye
Tobacco
Canola
971,082
893,580
692,319
366,975
122,788
82,822
61,191
53,499
29,381
37,883
24,586
11,032
17,293
3,364,432 Total
2.73
0.62
2.99
0.05
1.57
5.47
0.39
13.65
0.84
13.46
3.00
1.00
5.35
N/A
Data acquired from OMAFRA (2010). *Calculations based on Field Crop Statistics from 2003-2009.
Table 1.2 Harvested and Unharvested Hectares of Major Field Crops in Ontario
Field Crops Average Crop Yield (tonne/ha) Residual-To-Crop Ratio
Hay
Soybeans
Grain corn
Winter wheat
Fodder corn
Barley
Spring wheat
Mixed grain
Dry field beans
Oats
Fall rye
Tobacco
Canola
2.49
2.65
8.82
5.13
37.29
3.29
3.33
2.93
2.15
2.54
2.37
2.59
2.02
0.0
1.1
1.0
1.7
0.0
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
(OMAFRA publications, Communication with OFA personnel, Helwig et al. (2002))
Table 1.3 Crop Yield and Residual-to-Crop Ratio of Major Field Crops in Ontario
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
harvest. As seen in Figure 1.2, other crops represent a
relatively small percentage of the total crop land in the
province. Field vegetables and greenhouse crops
produce higher residual tonnage per hectare. How-
ever, the moisture content of these residuals is too
high to be processed as a biomass fuel for OPG.
These high moisture agricultural residuals can be used
to produce compost that can be added to farm land
which grows field crops. This addition may allow for
the removal of a portion of relatively dry field crop
residuals for bio-energy applications. Table 1.5
summarizes the total above ground agricultural
residual production in Ontario for all crop lands.
An additional potential source of agricultural biomass
fuel is pearl millets grown as a pest control measure
for potato, tobacco and strawberry crops (Anand
Kumer et al., 2009). Since there is a very limited market
for millets in Ontario, this pest control crop can
contribute to the bio-fuel supply. Pearl millet is a
Field Crops
Hectares
Harvested
Crop Residuals
(000 tonne)
Un-harvested
Residuals
(000 tonne)
Total Residuals
(000 tonne)
Hay
Soybeans
Grain corn
Winter wheat
Fodder corn
Barley
Spring wheat
Mixed grain
Dry field beans
Oats
Fall rye
Tobacco
Canola
971,082
893,580
692,319
366,975
122,788
82,822
61,191
53,499
29,381
37,883
24,586
11,032
17,293
3,364,431
0
2,601
6,107
3,200
0
409
265
188
70
192
87
29
35
13,183
49
2,624
6,381
3,202
54
437
266
223
71
221
90
29
38
13,685
49
23
274
2
54
28
1
35
1
29
3
0
3
502 Total
Major Crops Hectares Harvested
Residuals Produced
(000 tonne)
Field crops
Fruits
Vegetables
Greenhouse crops
13,687
50
1,774
928
16,439
3,364,431
24,818
70,971
9,276
3,469,497 Total
Table 1.4 Estimate of Annual Residual Production from Major Field Crops
Table 1.5 Total Agricultural Residual Production from Major Crops in Ontario
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
Figure 1.2 Field Crops and Other Crops Hectares in Ontario with Residuals Estimates
high biomass yielding cereal crop which requires
low chemical inputs, has good draught resistance
and is effecti ve in controlling some nematode
species. The potential biomass quantity from
pearl millet is estimated and given in Table 1.6.
It is assumed that mi l l et i s grown every three
years as a pest control crop and yi el ds 13
tonne/ ha of dry bi omass.
1.4 Preliminary Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals
As presented in the previous section, three field crops,
namely grain corn, winter wheat and soybeans,
represent approximately 90% of the total above
ground residual production from field crops in Ontario.
These 3 field crops should be the agricultural resid-
uals considered for large scale power generation by
Crop Hectare
Millet Hectares in
Rotation
Biomass Yield
(tonne/yr)
Potato
Tobacco
Strawberry
Total
15,441
12,816
1,717
5,147
4,272
572
66,911
55,536
7,436
129,883
Table 1.6 Potential Biomass Fuel from Pearl Millets in Rotation as a Pest Control
24,818
70,971
9,276
3,364,432
Field Crops
Fruit Crops
Vegetable Crops
Greenhouse Crops
Residual Estimates
4 tonne/ha @ 15% Moisture
OPG. Each of these three major residual producing
crops has advantages and disadvantages when
used for bi o- energy appl i cati ons. These advan-
tages and di sadvantages are discussed bel ow
t hrough a preliminary eval uat i on. Detailed
analysis and evaluations regardi ng the sustain-
abi l i t y and e c onomi c p e r s p e c t i v e s a r e
pr ovi ded i n the fol l owi ng chapters.
Currently, the most used agricultural residual in
Ontario is cereal straw. This includes mainly winter
wheat straw and straws from other cereal crops such
as barley, spring wheat, mixed grain, fall rye and
canola. The total annual production of cereal straw in
Ontario is approximately 4.5 million tonnes, which
represents about 33% of the total above ground field
crop residuals. Advantages of cereal straw as a biomass
fuel include the ability to harvest using conventional
farming equipment and known market prices. There is
a cereal straw surplus in the province, and the declining
cattle industry should result in a decreasing straw
demand for animal bedding. Farmers usually harvest
and sell cereal straw when there is a market demand,
therefore, harvesting practices are not new to the
farming community. The disadvantage of cereal straw
as a biomass fuel includes possible competition with
existing consumers. The demand beyond a certain
volume could lead to a sharp price increase.
Soybeans are the second largest field crop in Ontario
following hay crops. The annual above ground residual
production from soybeans is approximately 2.6 million
tonnes, which represents about 19% of the total resid-
uals production in the province. Advantages of soybean
stover as a biomass fuel include a lower moisture
content at harvest and limited market competition.
Soybean stover can be harvested using existing farm
equipment with slight modifications. The market price
may be relatively easy to estimate based on the
residuals yield and the activities involved in harvesting
and bailing. Some farmers harvest soybean stover,
although not frequently. Soybean stover may be
used as animal bedding when the wheat straw
price is high due to imbalanced straw supply and
demand in a particular region.
Disadvantages of soybean stover as a biomass fuel
may include greater dust production during harvesting
of the stover, which is brittle. Soybeans are small
plants and do not produce a large quantity of above
ground residuals. Without incorporating farm manage-
ment practices such as growing cover crops, the
removal of soybean stover for energy applications
could lead to greater soil erosion.
Grain corn generates the greatest quantity of
residuals, 6.4 million tonnes, of all the major field
crops. This represents about 47% of the total annual
above ground residual production in Ontario, and
consists of 5.7 million tonnes of corn stover and 0.7
million tonnes of corn cobs. Advantages of corn
residuals as a biomass fuel include limited market
competition, high residual yield, and the willingness
of farmers to remove a portion if a market exists.
In some Ontario regions, excess corn residual
biomass in the field prevents conser vat i on
t i l l age, si nce resi dual s must be i ncorporated
into the soil through conventional ploughing to
ease planting in the next growing season.
Disadvantages of corn residuals as a biomass
fuel include the need for specialized harvesting
equipment, specifically for corn cobs, and additional
passes to harvest the residuals. Another major issue
regarding the corn residuals harvest may be the
narrow harvesting time window. Grain corn is usually
harvested between late October and early November,
where harvesting depends on the moisture content
of the grain. A combination of a humid summer and
an early snowfall may reduce the harvesting time
window for grain corn to a few weeks with a tight
time window to collect the residuals.
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
Table 1.7 evaluates the three major residual producing
crops in Ontario as a biomass fuel at the commercial
scale. Since biomass fuel may be acquired by OPG in
the 2014 harvest season, the harvesting technology
development timing receives the highest weighting
followed by current harvesting practices. Cereal straw
receives the highest overall score of the major residual
producing crops. However, the amount of cereal straw
available for power generation may be limited due to
the existing market demand. Soybean stover and corn
residuals rank similarly in the evaluation as a biomass
fuel. As previously mentioned, growing cover crops
may be required following the soybean stover harvest
to prevent soil erosion. Corn stover and corn cobs
provide the largest quantity of agricultural residuals in
the province. The time required to develop and deploy
new harvesting equipment may be longer for these
residuals in comparison with other residual materials.
A corn residual supply chain must be developed to
ensure a stable supply of biomass fuel.
Current
Harvesting
Practices
Biomass
Quantity
Available
Market
Competition
Factors
Social
Acceptability
Total
Score
(Max 85)
Harvesting
Technology
Development
Timing
Weighting
Cereal
straw
Soybean
stover
Corn residuals
(stover &
cobs)
4
5
4
3
3
4
3
5
5
3
4
3
2
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
78
64
61
Table 1.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Major Agricultural Residuals for Energy Use
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

&

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
In Ontario, biomass is a potentially large source of
fuel to replace coal for the production of electricity.
The fuel characteristics of biomass vary widely, and
a consi stent fuel suppl y i s necessary to ensure
maximum combustion efficiency. Pre-treatment
options are under development to modify biomass
properties to achieve a set fuel specification.
Agricultural residuals vary greatly in terms of chemical
properties and the corresponding fuel properties.
Each crop residual will have differing chemical
characteristics and compositions. Therefore, a
combination of various agricultural residuals may
provide the best option for use as a biomass fuel.
In this chapter, a description of agricultural residuals
produced in Ontario and their fuel properties is
provided. The various components of residuals
are discussed along with their effects on biomass
combustion. The challenges of agricultural residuals
combustion are identified as well as potential
solutions. Current harvesting technologies that can
be used for residual collection are reviewed along with
developments in residual harvesting technologies.
2.1 Biomass Chemical Analytical Methods
Biomass is a complex, heterogeneous mixture of
organic and inorganic matter containing solid and liquid
materials and minerals of various origins. The compo-
sition of each agricultural residual is unique, therefore,
each residual has different fuel properties. A number
of st andard t est s have been and are under
devel opment to characterize solid biomass fuels.
Power generation stations analyse fuels prior to their
use in combustion to ensure compliance with specifi-
cations such as moisture, ash and heating values. The
quality of the biomass fuel is important to determine
the expected combustion performance. It is also
important to determine the chemical content of the
biomass to predict ash formation and behaviour
in the boilers.
It is critical to have a standard measurement procedure
to ensure that fuel analyses are reproducible and
unambiguous. Standard tests are under develop-
ment for the testing of biomass fuels. European
countries have developed a series of standard tests,
Chapter2
Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals,
Fuel Improvement Options & Harvesting Technologies
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Analysis Test Procedure
Higher Heating Value
Proximate Analysis
Ultimate Analysis
Moisture
Carbon & Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Chlorine
Oxygen
Elemental Ash
Ash
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
ASTM D2015
1
ASTM E711
1,2
ASTM E871
1,2
ASTM D1102
1,2
ASTM E830
1
ASTM E872
1,2
ASTM E897
1
By difference (percentage of
moisture, ash and volatile matter
subtracted from 100)
1,2
Measure directly
1
By difference (the percentage of
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen,
sulphur and chlorine subtracted
from 100)
2
ASTM E777
1,2
ASTM E778
1,2
ASTM E775
1,2
ASTM E776
1
ASTM D3682
1
ASTM D2795
1
Table 2.1 ASTM Standard Tests for Biomass Fuels
1 Miles et al. (1996) oxygen should be measured
directly since other elements such as chlorine may
distort the oxygen value
2 ASTM E870 Standard Test Methods of Analysis
of Wood Fuels
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
such as the CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards from the
Biomass Energy Centre in the United Kingdom. ASTM
International has developed a series of tests for bio-
mass fuels, and Hazen Research Inc. in Colorado has
developed the procedure Determination of Water
Soluble Alkali to determine water soluble alkalis in
biomass. An ASTM Standard for this measurement
has not been developed. Examples of relevant fuel
quality tests for determining the fuel characteristics
of agricultural residuals are shown in Table 2.1.
2.2 Fuel Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals
Very little chemical composition information is avail-
able for agricultural residuals in terms of the biomass
and biomass ash. All agricultural materials have high
contents of ash, moisture, chlorine, potassium,
magnesium, nitrogen, sulphur, aluminum, calcium,
manganese and silicon compared fossil fuel sources.
The characteristics of biomass are very different from
coal. Along with the differing chemical compositions,
the higher heating value of residuals is generally lower
due to their higher moisture content.
The following tables provide the fuel characteristics
of a number of agricultural residuals. The average
value is provided and the range of values is given
in parenthesis.
2.2.1 Corn Stover
Corn is grown for the corn grains on the corn cob. In
Ontario, grain corn and sweet corn are produced.
Sweet corn is produced for human consumption, how-
ever, the quantity produced is small in comparison to
grain corn. When corn is harvested in the fall, October
to early November, the corn ears are removed from the
stalk. Corn stover is the residual material following the
corn grain harvest which consists of long leaves and
the tall stalk of the plant. At the time of the grain
harvest, these materials have a low water content and
are bulky. For the analysis in this report, corn stover is
considered to be the leaves and stalk materials and
does not include the root system or crown. Corn cobs
are analysed separately. Figure 2.1 shows the corn
plant prior to harvest and Table 2.2 provides the fuel
characteristics of corn stover.
Figure 2.1 Corn Stover (with unharvested corn cobs)
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash
4.0
(2.7-7.7)
20.6
(19.2-22.0)
78.6
(73.1-84.0)
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
7942
(7604-8782)
46.9
(45.6-49.4)
5.5
(5.4-5.8)
41.5
(39.7-43.3)
0.6
(0.3-0.8)
0.04
(0.0-0.1)
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
4.0
(3.7-4.4)
33.8
(31.2-36.4)
0.5
(0.4-0.5)
0.6
6.7
(3.5-9.9)
3.6
(3.0-4.3)
0.4
(0.1-0.7)
30.3
(21.8-38.7)
1.9
(1.8-2.0)
5.7
(2.2-9.2)
5.3
(2.8-8.0)
Table 2.2 Fuel Characteristics of Corn Stover
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Phyllis Database (www.ecn.nl/phyllis/);
IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database (http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/biomass.php);
Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database (www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/search/html)
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
2.2.2 Corn Cob
Corn grains are grown on the corn cob. The cob is
the tough, central growth support for the corn
grains. When corn is harvested in October or early
November, the corn grain is gleaned from the corn
cob by the combine and the cob is returned to the
field. Technologies are under development for the
collection of corn cobs. Figure 2.2 shows collected
corn cobs, and Table 2.3 lists the fuel characteristics
of corn cobs.
Figure 2.2 Corn Cobs
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash
1.2
(1.0-1.4)
17.4
80.6
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
40.3
4.1
1.3
2.5
1.2
2.0
8.7
6.9
47.8
(46.6-49.0)
7695
(7310-8090)
5.6
(5.4-5.9)
44.2
0.4
(0.4-0.5)
0.1
Table 2.3 Fuel Characteristics of Corn Cob
2.2.3 Wheat Straw
In Ontario, the main types of wheat grown are winter-
wheat and spring wheat. Winter wheat is planted in
the fall following the harvest of soybeans or corn. This
wheat winters under the snow and the majority of the
growth begins in March when the land begins to warm.
Winter wheat has a high grain yield since it is in the
ground for nearly a year before the grain is harvested
in July. Increased winter wheat performace in the
southern region of the province is due to milder
winters. Spring wheat is planted in the spring following
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash
6.2
(2.6-13.5)
21.5
69.4
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
44.3
(37.3-49.4)
7663
(5082-8788)
5.3
(4.7-6.1)
39.8
(23.8-49.3)
0.6
(0.3-0.9)
0.1
(0.03-0.4)
51.5
(1.8-72.5)
0.8
(0.0-3.5)
0.1
(0.0-0.2)
0.4
(0.0-1.0)
6.6
(0.4-17.0)
1.7
(0.1-3.7)
1.9
(0.1-3.5)
17.1
(0.4-26.2)
3.7
(0.8-6.6)
2.1
(0.1-3.6)
2.0
(0.3-3.8)
3.3
(0.2-6.4)
Table 2.4 Fuel Characteristics of Wheat Straw
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
the winter. The majority of this wheat is grown in
northern and eastern Ontario and is harvested in the
fall. Wheat grains grow on multi-seed heads at the top
of grass-like stalks which become the straw. The stalks
are cut above the ground during the grain harvest
and are left in the field to dry prior to straw baling.
Figure 2.3 shows the wheat crop prior to the grain
harvest and Table 2.4 provides the fuel characteristics
of wheat straw.
2.2.4 Soybean Stover
Soybeans are grown inside pods on the soybean
plant, where each pod contains 2 - 4 seeds. The
soybean plant consists of a stalk, leaves, roots and
soybean seed pods. The leaves of the soybean plant
usually drop off the stalk before the soybeans have
matured. The stalk of the soybean plant is the
available residual material at the time of harvest.
Soybeans are harvested once the moisture level has
reached approximately 14%. The current harvesting
practice is to cut the soybean plant during harvest of
the beans with return of the stalk to the field. Soybean
stover is cut into pieces by the combine chopper and
returned to the soil. In this analysis, soybean
stover is the cut above ground stalk and any remaining
leaves on the plant. Figure 2.4 shows a soybean
crop prior to harvest and Table 2.5 identifies the
fuel characteristics of the soybean stover.
Figure 2.3 Wheat Straw (with unharvested grain)
Figure 2.4 Soybean Stover (with unharvested soybeans)
2.2.5 Barley Straw
Barley grows on hollow, cylindrical stems, which
become the barley straw. Barley has 1 or 3 spikelets;
each spikelet contains 2 rows of kernels resulting in 2
or 6-rowed barley. The stems are cut above the ground
during the kernel harvest and are left in the field to dry
prior to straw baling. Barley straw is considered to be
the barley stems and leaves. Figure 2.5 shows the
barley crop prior to harvest and Table 2.6 provides
the fuel characteristics of barley straw.
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash 6
75.3
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
44.3
(43.0-45.6)
7723
(7506-7940)
6.0
(5.6-6.4)
45.7
(44.9-46.4)
0.7
(0.6-0.8)
0.1
Table 2.5 Fuel Characteristics of Soybean Stover
Figure 2.5 Barley Straw (with unharvested grain)
Sulphur
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash
18.5
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
44.3
(43.0-45.6)
7723
(7506-7940)
6.0
(5.6-6.4)
45.7
(44.9-46.4)
72.1
(64-82)
5.5
(4.0-9.8)
0.7
(0.6-0.8)
0.1
50.8
0.2
(0.1-0.7)
0.1
(0.0-0.2)
0.1
(0.1-1.0)
8.1
(3.2-14.7)
1.8
(1.6-2.9)
1.0
(0.3-1.5)
18.5
(8.0-33.0)
2.5
(1.8-3.1)
3.8
(1.9-5.0)
0.4
8.2
(3.2-13.2)
Table 2.6 Fuel Characteristics of Barley Straw
2.2.6 Hay
Hay can be grass, legumes or herbaceous plants that
have been cut, dried and stored for later use. Hay
includes timothy, fescue, alfalfa and clover. Hay
consists of the leaf, steam and seed components of the
plant. Hay is cut and dried in the field when the seed
heads are not mature but the leaf is fully developed.
Following drying, hay is raked into windrows for
bailing. Figure 2.6 shows a Timothy Hay field, and
Table 2.7 provides the fuel characteristics of hay.
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Figure 2.6 Timothy Hay
Proximate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Water Soluble
Alkalis %
(wt% dry basis)
Ultimate Analysis
(wt% dry basis)
Elemental
Composition
(wt% dry basis)
Alkali
(lb/MMBtu)
Moisture
Fixed
Carbon
Volatile
Matter
Ash 5.7
1.6
CaO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
44.6
(44.3-44.8)
7723
(7506-7940)
5.1
(5.0-5.2)
45.6
(42.5-48.6)
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Ash
Moisture
HHV
(BTU/lb)
Chlorine %
SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
CaO
MgO
Na
2
O
K
2
O
SO
3
P
2
O
5
CO
2
Cl
0.13
7916
(7105-8185)
Table 2.7 Fuel Characteristics of Hay
2.3 Summary of Biomass Properties as a Fuel
Chemical properties of various biomass samples were
examined by researchers and are summarized as
follows: (Vassilev et al., 2010)
Agricultural residuals produce higher ash yields
than forestry biomass.
Annual and fast growing crops have the highest
contents of ash, moisture, Cl, K, Mg, N, P and S.
All biomass has similar contents of C, H and O
with differing N and ash forming elements.
The moisture in biomass is an aqueous solution
containing: Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ti, Br, Cl,
carbonate, F, I, nitrate, hydroxide,
phosphate and sulphate.
Volatile matter appears as light hydrocarbons,
CO, CO
2
, H
2
, moisture and tars.
Tall grasses and straw have a naturally high
concentration of Si which provides the plant
with sturdiness and rigidity. Si may also be
i ntroduced through sand, clay and soil
components col l ected duri ng resi dual
harvest, transport or processing.
Biomass with a large annual growth rate has a
high content of alkaline elements since these
elements are readily absorbed from the soil.
Carbon dioxide and water react with alkaline and
alkaline earth oxides to form hydrates, hydroxides
and carbonates in the ash during biomass
oxidation and storage.
2. 3. 1 Ef f ec t on Combus t i on of Chemi c al
El ement s f ound i n Agr i cul t ur al Resi dual s
Biomass materials have a different chemical
composition in comparison to coal. Many inorganic
compounds occur naturally in biomass due to plant
uptake from a number of sources. These mineral
components pose challenges for biomass combustion.
Silicon, aluminum and titanium occur in plants in the
form of oxides, where silicon is the most abundant
component. These oxides are not water soluble and
appear mainly in the plant residual material. These
oxides also do not vapourize or become mobilized at
combustion temperatures. Silicon has an important
role in plant structure. It is incorporated into the plant
through biological processes and is believed to provide
the plant with rigidity, to withstand wind and rain,
overall strength and has a small role in photosynthesis.
Aluminum and titanium oxides are generally found in
small to trace amounts in biomass fuels (Miles et al., 1996).
Alkali and alkaline earth metals are essential to plant
metabolism and are included in organic structures or
in mobile inorganic forms. Potassium and calcium
are commonly found elements in biomass. High
concentrations of potassium are generally found in
herbaceous biomass fuels. The majority of the
potassium in biomass is water soluble and is an
essential nutrient for plants as a facilitator for osmotic
processes. The high potassium content of agricultural
residuals is likely due to the use of fertilizers (Werther
et al., 2000). Calcium is commonly found in cell walls
and organic components of cell structures. Sodium
and magnesium are generally found in small quantities.
Potassium and sodium are also common components
of clay soil (Miles et al., 1996).
Alkalis, such as sodium and potassium, are susceptible
to vapourization. Alkaline earth metals, such as
calcium and magnesium, are less likely to volatilize,
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
and during combustion are more likely to form stable
compounds that are less volatile than alkali materials.
Non-metallics, such as chlorine and sulphur, are plant
nutrients. Chlorine has an active role in inorganic
compounds reactions. Chlorine and alkali metals
react to form volatile and stable alkali chlorides, where
chlorine is the facilitator for vapourization. Chlorides
condensate on cooler surfaces in the presence of
sulphur which results in sulphate formation that can
lead to corrosion. Stable chlorine contai ning
vapours generated during combustion include alkali
chlorides and hydrogen chloride. Sulphur is a trace
component of bi omass with the exception of
straws, but has a large role i n ash deposi ti on,
where deposits are based on sulphate formation.
Most f orms of sul phur wi l l oxi dize during
combustion and many then react with alkali metals
to form sulphates. Alkali sulphates are unstable
at combustion temperatures. Phosphorus is a
component of biomass fuels and its behaviour
has not been characterized during combustion
(Miles et al., 1996). Biomass generally contains
low concentrations of iron. It is believed that iron
generally has a small rol e in the formati on of
ash deposits (Miles et al., 1996).
2.3.2 Factors Effecting the Chemical Compositions of
Residuals
Agricultural residuals from a specific crop can have a
range of chemical composition values. This range is
influenced by a number of factors introduced during
crop production which affect the natural biomass
properties. These factors include: (Vassilev et al., 2010)
Type of plant: species and the component of the
plant (stalk or leaves)
Growth processes: ability of the plant to uptake
nutrients from the water, air and soil and transport
and store these materials in various plant tissues
Growing conditions: amount of sunlight,
geographic location, climate, soil type, water
availability, soil pH, nutrient availability,
proximity to forested areas, waterways and
pollution sources
Age of the plant when harvested
Harvest time and collection technique for the
residual harvest
Residual transport and storage conditions
Fertilizer and pesticide usage
Collection of external materials, such as soil,
during the harvest of residuals
A number of relationships have been identified
between the activities and the environment involved
in biomass production and the fuel properties.
Researchers have suggested that the plant species has
a more important role than the soil type, growing
region and fertilizer treatment (Vassilev et al., 2010).
More research is required to confirm this hypothesis.
2.3.3 Inherent Undesirables in Biomass Residual Fuels
Contamination will occur if biomass fuels are not
collected according to proper harvesting procedures
as well as transport, storage, pre-treatment and
processing techniques. Growing conditions also
effect the concentrations of some elements in the
biomass. For instance, the content of aluminum in
plants is effected by the pH of the soil (Cowan, 2010).
Aluminum can inhibit plant growth and can be toxic
to plants. Depending on the soil pH, aluminum can
have different effects on the plant. At a pH below 5,
aluminum can inhibit plant growth, at a pH between
5.5 and 6, aluminum is in hydroxyl form and is not
toxic to plants. Above a pH of 6, aluminum does not
have any effect (Kessel, 2008). Exposure to pollution
sources such as groundwater and aerosols can
result in i ncreased elemental concentrations.
Contamination of agricultural residuals can also
occur at various points along the supply chain. This
contamination will also affect the fuel quality. Fur-
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
ther discussion on biomass contamination through-
out the supply chain is discussed in Chapter 4.
2.4 Challenges Associated with Biomass Combustion
The utilization of biomass as a fuel sets new demands
for boiler process control, boiler design and for com-
bustion technologies including fuel blend control and
fuel handling systems. Most of the challenges related
to biomass combustion are the result of the biomass
fuel properties. Understanding of combustion
mechanisms are required to achieve high combustion
efficiency and effective design and operation of
combustion systems.
The high moisture content of the biomass can lead to
poor ignition, and reduces the combustion tempera-
ture which hinders combustion of the reaction
products and affects the combustion quality. A large
quantity of flue gas is formed during the combustion
of high moisture content fuels which eventually leads
to large size equipment for flue gas treatment (Werther
et al., 2000).
Efficient ash removal equipment is required to reduce
or eliminate particulate pollution. Agricultural residu-
als combustion produces low melting temperature ash
due to the presence of high concentrations of
potassium oxide in the residual biomass. This results
in fouling, scaling and corrosion of heat transfer
surfaces (Werther et al., 2000).
A large quantity of volatile matter is present in agricul-
tural residuals compared to coal. This indicates that
agricultural residuals are easier to burn but may lead to
rapid combustion that may be difficult to control.
Attention must be given to the combustion control system
of residual fuels to ensure complete combustion of
volatiles, high combustion efficiency and low emissions
of CO, hydrocarbons and PAH (Werther et al., 2000).
The presence of sulphur, nitrogen, chlorine and other
chemical elements in the biomass result in the
formation of gaseous pollutants such as SO
x
, NO
x
,
N
2
O, HCl, dioxins and furans. Unburned pollutants
may include CO, hydrocarbons, tar, PAH, C
x
H
y
and char
particles. These unburned pollutants are generally the
result of poor combustion due to low combustion
temperatures, insufficient mixing of the fuel with
combustion air and too short of a residence time of
the gases in the combustion zone. Lower emissions are
achieved if combustion is conducted with a higher
burn out efficiency through efficient mixing of the
combustion air with the combustibles (Werther et
al., 2000). Ash is also a potential pollutant that is
carried by the flue gas from the furnace. Fine fly ash
is generally derived from easily leached elements
from the biomass (Veijonen et al., 2003). Ash emis-
sions are a function of the fuel f eedrate, ash
cont ent , excess ai r rat i o and t he di stri bution
of the combustion air (Werther et al., 2000).
2.5.1 Devolatilization
Common characteristics of most biomass are the low
temperature devolatilization and combustion properties.
Complete devolatilization of agricultural residuals and
char combustion can occur at relatively low tempera-
tures. The quantity of volatiles produced at a specific
temperature is dependent on the biomass particle size.
During devolatilization, agricultural residuals undergo
a thermal decomposition to release volatiles and form
tar and char. The amount of these products formed
depends on the residual and the combustion conditions
(Werther et al., 2000). For example, as the devolatilization
temperature increases, CO
2
production decreases
while H
2
and CO formation quickly increase.
The high volatile matter content of agricultural residuals
has a significant effect on combustion mechanisms
and consequently on the design and operation of
combustion systems. Volatiles consist mainly of com-
bustibles and release a significant amount of energy.
Devolatilization starts at low temperatures for low
moisture content residuals. Devolatilization is expected
to occur as soon as the fuel is exposed to the high
temperature atmosphere which presents a challenge
for combustion control (Werther et al., 2000).
2.5.2 Ash Melting
Agricultural residuals have high concentrations of
alkali oxides and salts, which have low melting
temperatures. This may lead to problems in the boiler
during combustion. The ash produced by the combustion
of agricultural residuals contains a mixture of inorganic
components. This results in an ash that does not have
a well defined melting point and melting occurs
over a temperature range that begins at the initial
deformation temperature (Werther et al., 2000).
2.5.2.1 Deposit Formation
Gaseous or liquid phase constituents form deposits on
cooled surfaces or furnace walls which lead to slagging
and fouling. Deposit formation leads to a reduction in
heat transfer rates and increased corrosion (Werther,
2000). Substances vapourized in the boiler can con-
densate on heat transfer surfaces by the condensation
of volatiles from sulphation. These deposits can vary
from light sintering to complete fusion. The degree of
fouling and slagging depends on: local gas tempera-
ture, tube temperatures, temperature differences, gas
velocities, tube orientation, particle local heat flux and
the fuel composition (EUBIONET, 2003).
Alkali metals in ash have an important role in deposit
formation, which depends on the release and chem-
istry of chlorine, sulphur, aluminum silicates and
alkalis during combustion. Deposits will result in
decreased heat transfer of the heat delivery surfaces
leading to lower boiler efficiency and corrosion
(EUBIONET, 2003).
If chlorine concentrations are limited or absent, alkali
hydroxides are dominant in the gas phase. Gaseous
alkali compounds on the metal surfaces result in the
formation of sticky coatings which exacerbate the
formation of deposits through inertial particle
impaction (Khan et al., 2009).
There are 5 main mechanisms which lead to the
formation of deposits on heat transfer surfaces, shown
in Figure 2.7. These mechanisms include (EUBIONET,
2003):
1. Inertial impaction where the majority of the fly
ash does not follow the stream lines of the gas
flow and impact the heat transfer surfaces.
2. Thermophoresis of fly ash due to the difference
in temperature between the gas and the boiler
surfaces. As the deposit layer thickness
increases, thermophoresis is reduced as the
sur face of the deposi t approaches the
gas temperature.
3. Condensation of vapourized compounds occur
when the compound is in contact with lower
temperature heat transfer surfaces.
4. Diffusion of small fly ash particles into porous
deposits.
5. Chemical reactions within the deposit layer and
between gas and solid components.
2.5.2.2 Corrosion
Ash from biomass fuels contains certain chemicals
which result in the corrosion and erosion of metals
when deposited on surfaces. Silicon and potassium
form silicates that have a low melting point. Combustion
of residuals with high silicon and potassium contents,
such as wheat straw, leads to the condensation of
molten silicates resulting in fouling and corrosion.
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Metal combustion system surfaces are vulnerable to
chemical attack when silicates are present protective
layers of oxides can be soluble or react in silicate slags.
As well, the high volatilities of alkali metals can result
in unanticipated corrosion reactions. Research has
shown that the corrosion rate of steel exposed to flue
gas was found to be strongly dependent on the surface
temperature (Werther et al., 2000). Chlorine rich
deposits lead to corrosion of the heat transfer surfaces.
Deposits may be detected quickly, however, corrosion
progresses slowly and can occur without slagging
or fouling.
The low melting points of ash from the combustion
of agricultural residuals can result in serious
design and operational challenges including
f oul i ng, sl aggi ng and corr osi on of boi l er
s u r f aces. Possi bl e sol ut i ons i ncl ude t he
i mprovement of fuel properties or the design of
combustion systems so that the furnace is
maintained at temperatures below the melting
point of ash.
Sulphation
Diffusion
in porous
deposits
Turbulent flow in
staggard tube array
Condensation on
aerosol particles
Thermophoresis
Condensation
on deposit
layer
Coarse particle
sticking
Corrosion
Heat
transfer
Sintering &
removability by
sootblowing
Alkali aerosol particles &
coarse mode particles
Chloride vapours
SO
2
HCI
Figure 2.7 Schematic Illustration of Deposit Formation and Condensation of Inorganic
Vapour on a Tube Surface (EUBIONET, 2003)
2.6 Biomass Fuel Improvement Options
Raw biomass poses challenges during combustion of
the fuel, however, there are options to minimize these
problems. Preventative actions can be implemented
prior to burning the biomass fuel. Pre-treatment
options are under development to reduce the quantity
of problematic components in the biomass to avoid
detrimental effects in the boiler. The following
pre-treatment techniques have been tested on the
laboratory scale or in demonstration field plots and are
emerging on the commercial scale. These techniques
include washing and over-wintering of the biomass as
well as the addition of additives.
Pre-treatment options have been found to dramatically
affect the results of combustion and fulfill two impor-
tant objectives (Khan et al., 2009). Pre-treatments
allow for a reduction in the concentration of elements
that result in deposit formation in combustion boilers
as well as to return nutrients that would otherwise be
removed from the field back to the soil (Turin et al.,
1997). Pre-treatments are used to minimize or eliminate
corrosive chemical elements that are plant nutrients,
such as alkali metals. These components are generally
water soluble and can be removed easily through
washing techniques (Turin et al., 1997). Pre-treatments
would be applied prior to biomass combustion in order
meet a fuel specification.
2.6.1 Leaching of Agricultural Residuals
Leaching, or washing, of the agricultural residuals is
the removal of the problem-causing components in
the biomass through a liquid rinse. This can be
accomplished through washing with water or acid.
2.6.1.1 Leaching with Water
Biomass washed with water removes the plant
nutrients for use in nutrient recycling while improving
the fuel combustion characteristics. Water leaching can
be implemented in two ways through washing on
the field naturally through rainfall or under controlled
conditions.
Leaching agricultural residuals on the field reduces the
concentration of minerals in the biomass and returns
the nutrients directly to the field. However, leaching is
dependent on the weather conditions and biomass can
degrade if left on the field too long. For example, this
wouldoccur if there was heavy rainfall over a long period
of time without an opportunity for residual harvesting.
A second pass may be required to collect the residuals
depending on the harvesting process. Residual mate-
rials may be baled at the time of crop harvest, with
bales stored at the edge of the field. The residuals
would then be washed as bales with the nutrients
leached back into the soil at the edge of the field.
Residuals may also be washed where grown on the
field. This would require harvesting of the crop,
followed by rain washing of the residual material and
a second pass to harvest the residuals. This would
provide an equal distribution of the nutrients back to
the field for reuse by the next crop. A third alternative
would be the collection and transport of the residual
material to an external facility for controlled washing
and collection of the plant nutrients in the wash water
to return to the field.
Studies have shown that through washing, large
quantities of potassium, chlorine, and phosphorus
compounds are removed from the biomass and into
the water. Most of the inherent alkali and alkaline earth
metals are water soluble or ion exchangeable (Jenkins
et al., 1996).
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Published information shows the effects of washing on
wheat straw. Wheat straw was washed using various
techniques including rain washing, tap and distilled
water washing and soaking in distilled water. It was
determined that (Jenkins et al., 1996):
Washing with distilled and tap water resulted in
easy removal of potassium, sodium and chlorine
Total ash produced was reduced by 68% for
treated wheat straw compared to untreated straw
The effects of various washing techniques on the
ash content of wheat straw include:
o Untreated straw: ash content of 13%
o 1 minute spray with tap water: ash content
of 9.5%
o 19 mm straw particles washed with 20 L of
tap water: ash content of 5.0%
o 19 mm straw particles washed with 20 L of
distilled water: ash content of 4.2%
o 0.9 mm straw particles soaked for 24 hours
in distilled water: ash content of 6.2%
The effects of washing wheat straw on the
chemical composition of the biomass includes:
o Reduction in sulphur content by 77%
o Reduction in chlorine content by 90%
o Reduction in K
2
O content by 84%
The effects of washing wheat straw on the
chemical composition of the ash includes:
o Reduction in K
2
O content by 68%
o Reduction in SO
3
content by 69%
o Reduction in Cl content by 96%
Untreated wheat straw and treated wheat straw
emitted volatiles for 2-4 minutes during combustion
Untreated wheat straw produced a glassy slag
between 800 850
o
C. Wheat straw reduced to
a 0.9 mm particle size and washed with 20 L of
distilled water did not form slag until 1250 1300
o
C. The other washing techniques did not form
slag until the combustion temperature was
above 1000
o
C.
A study was carried out to determine the effects of
natural washing by rain water on rice straw. Samples
of rice straw were collected at harvest, and following
65 mm of precipitation. These samples were air dried
in a laboratory and rinsed to remove soil. The follow-
ing effects were noted the following the rain wash
(Jenkins et al., 1996):
Reduction in ash content by 8%
Reduction in the chemical composition of rice
straw:
o Reduction in sulphur content by 33%
o Reduction in chlorine content by 92%
o Reduction in K
2
O content by 82%
o Reduction in P
2
O
5
content by 78%
o Reduction in SO
3
content by 63%
Reduction in the chemical composition of rice
straw ash:
o Reduction in K
2
O content by 80%
o Reduction in P
2
O
5
content by 76%
o Reduction in SO
3
content by 57%
Untreated rice straw produced slag between
1300 1350
o
C. Rice straw harvested following
rain wash did not form slag until 1600
o
C.
Studies of water washing techniques on the commercial
scale have not been published. In the cases presented
above, these results indicate that controlled and
natural rain washing techniques are both effective
methods to improve fuel quality. These pre-treatment
techniques are not technically sophisticated and may
be easily commercialized to meet the market for the
treated biomass.
2.6.1.2 Leaching with Acid
Washing biomass with acids is not widely tested and
has not been demonstrated commercially. This tech-
nique increases the environmental concerns as the
plant nutrients are contained in an acid solution which
requires additional treatments to remove nutrients for
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
nutrient recycling as well as acid disposal. The
appl i cation of an acid pre-treatment will improve
the combustion of the fuel through the alteration of
pore structures and the removal mineral elements.
A laboratory based study was conducted to determine
the effect of acid washing on wood and cotton residu-
als. Pre-treatments were conducted using two acids -
0.1 M HCl (hydrochloric acid) and 1 M of CH
3
COOH
(acetic acid). Samples of each biomass were stirred in
each acid for 4 hours. The samples were filtered,
washed with double distilled water and dried
(Vamvuka et al., 2006).
It was found that partial demineralization occurred
through the acid washing process which eliminated 15-
24% of the ash from wood and 57-68% of the ash from
the cotton residues. The hydrochloric acid was more
effective at reducing the ash content than the acetic
acid (Vamvuka et al., 2006). Hydrochloric acid was also
effective at reducing the concentrations of carbonates,
sulphates and alkali chlorides whereas the acetic acid
was effective at reducing calcite, a form of calcium car-
bonate, and anhydrite, a form of calcium sulphate.
Both acids were effective at reducing sodium and
potassium, however, neither removed a significant
quantity of silicon and aluminum (Vamvuka et al.,
2006).
Washing the biomass with acids was effective at
reducing mineral contents, however the results were
not as promising as water washing. Environmental
concerns regarding the use of acids will likely
hinder the commercialization of this process.
2.6.2 Over-wintering of Biomass Fuels
An alternative technique to improve fuel quality and
return plant nutrients to the soil is over-wintering of
agricultural biomass. Over-wintering decreases the
mineral concentrations of plant nutrients in the
biomass and also the fuel yield. Little information is
available on the over-wintering of agricultural residuals,
however, over-wintering studies have been conducted
on purpose-grown crops, specifically switchgrass.
A comparison study of the effects of over-wintering
was conducted where the biomass was harvested in
the fall or was left on the field and harvested in the
spring. It was found that the switchgrass fuel yield
decreased by 11% between the fall and the spring
harvest. This is the result of snow crushed biomass
that the baler could not cut and collect as well as the
loss of brittle biomass such as leaves and panicles that
broke off the stem. The amount of snowfall also has an
impact on the amount of biomass harvested. In one
case, an increase in snowfall of 150 cm was found to
decrease the fuel yield by 40%. This is likely due to
crushing of the biomass against the ground so that it
could not be cut and collected by the baler (Adler et al.,
2006).
Through the over-wintering of switchgrass, this study
found that there was a 30% reduction in the ash content
produced during ash testing. Over-wintering also led
to a reduction of specific minerals in the switchgrass.
Minerals of higher solubility in water were found to
have the greatest reduction in concentration. Specific
results include (Adler et al., 2006):
Reduction in potassium and chlorine contents by
38-83%
Reduction in magnesium and phosphorus
contents by 41-67%
Reduction in calcium, nitrogen and sulphur
contents by 5-28%
Over-wintering effecti vely reduces the mineral
content of biomass. However, in Ontario this
technique may result in a considerable reduction
of the biomass yield due to snowfall. This may
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
affect northern and snowbelt regions of Ontario
severely where heavy snowfalls are frequent.
2. 6. 3 Use of Addi ti ves f or Agri cul tural
Resi dual s Combusti on
Biomass fuel quality can be improved through the
addition of additives prior to biomass combustion.
Additives can be a solid, liquid or a gas that alters the
physical or chemical characteristics of the biomass
fuel. Additives increase the melting temperature of the
ash by inducing chemical reactions between the ash
and the additive to form new compounds with a higher
melting point. Additives can also react with flue
gasses to reduce corrosion. The increased melting
temperatures reduce the formation of slag, fouling and
corrosion that lead to low combustion efficiencies.
Solid additives are incorporated into the biomass
fuel during the fuel processing stage as part of
the biomass pellet.
Additives that have been tested on various small scale
units include kaolin, limestone, calcite, alumina and
dolomite. In general, kaolin binds to potassium in the
ash to form potassium aluminum silicates. The melting
behaviour of phosphate rich biomass fuels can be
significantly improved with the addition of lime and
calcium carbonate. Limestone reacts with the ash to
form calcium potassium phosphates. Calcite reacts
with aluminum silicates and magnesium silicates to
form calcium silicates. Alumina and dolomite have
also been used as additives but their roles and
mechanisms have not yet been determined. The use
of additives in agricultural residual combustion have
been examined on the lab scale.
In these studies, kaolin and limestone additives were
added to the ash of wheat straw before heating the
mixture to 1000
o
C. Kaolin and limestone were added
at 4-6 wt% of the biomass, and a lab oven was used to
determine the ash behaviour and properties. It was
found that both additives were effective at all concen-
trations to increase the ash melting temperatures.
The combination of kaolin and limestone were the
most effective at reducing sintering, where limestone
alone was nearly as effective. The addition of additives
increased the melting temperature by more than
300
o
C to 1100
o
C (Steenari, et al., 2009).
The affect of additives in corn stover pellets was
examined using a small scale commercial pellet
burner in a 90 kW boiler. Concentrations of 0-3% calcite
and kaolin were added to 4 mm corn stover pellets.
Pellets without additives caused severe deposit
formation in the burner which blocked the air outlets.
The melting temperature of the corn stover pellet ash
was 1170
o
C without the use of additives. The inclusion
of additives in the pellets improved the fuel quality
and the conditions in the burner. Calcite was more
effective than kaolin and produced smaller sized slag
particles.
However, kaolin increased the ash melting tempera-
ture to 1370
o
C while calcite increased the ash melting
temperature to 1290
o
C. The use of an additive also
decreased the amount of slag produced. The quantity
of slag produced by the inclusion of kaolin was reduced
by approximately 50%, where as the amount of slag
produced by the addition of calcite as reduced by
approximately 30%, compared to corn stover pellets
without additives. It was concluded that the increase
in the ash melting temperature was due to a reaction
that produced high melting temperature silicates from
low melting temperature silicates (Xiong et al., 2008).
ChlorOut is an aqueous ammonium sulphate
additive which is sprayed into the flue gas. This
additive reacts with alkali chlorides through sulphation
to form less corrosive sulphates and reduce corrosion
and deposit formation (Brostrom et al., 2007).
Chl orOut has been tested in European power
gener ation stations burning wood waste in
combustion systems based on grate, circulating
fluidized bed and bubbling fluidized bed technologies
(Livingston and Babcock, 2006).
These demonstration tests showed that ChlorOut
reduced corrosion, deposit growth, and the chlorine
content in the deposit (Brostrom et al., 2007). If
ammonia was included in the additive, the formation
of NO
x
was al so reduced ( Li vi ngst on and
Babcock, 2006).
Based on the quantities of additives used in literature
studies, the estimated cost of solid additives is
approximately $10/tonne of biomass fuel, which will
add approximately $0.55/GJ to the fuel cost. The use
of additives is a promising technique and additives
are commercially available at a reasonable price.
Further research is required to determine the optimum
quantities to add to the biomass for large applications
such as the OPG generating stations.
2.6.4 Pelletization
Pelletization of biomass produces a high-energy
density, homogeneous fuel. The pelletization process
compacts biomass into cylindrical shaped pellets.
Pelletization overcomes the challenges associated
with the low bulk density of biomass and results in
reduced transportation and storage costs. Properties
of pellets result in easier grinding, handling and feed-
ing to the boiler. The pelletization process includes
the drying, milling, conditioning, pelletizing and
cooling processes followed by fines separation.
For best pelletization, moisture levels of the raw biomass
must be between 8-17%. Above 17%, moisture will
be contained in the pellet which increases the volume
and weakens the pellet. If the biomass moisture
content is below 8%, the surface of the material may
carbonize and burn the binders (Maciejewska et al., 2006).
Binders may be added at the conditioning stage
to improve pellet adhesion. Binders include lignin,
starch, molasses, natural paraffin and synthetic agents
(Maciejewska et al., 2006). Pelletization is a
commercial process that has been in use for many years.
2.6.5 Torrefaction
Torrefaction is a promising pre-treatment option to
improve the properties of biomass for combustion and
gasification. These improvements include: higher
heating values per unit weight, enhanced hydrophobic
nature and grindability, and a uniform and durable fuel
(Maciejewska et al., 2006).
Torrefaction is a thermo-chemical process that is used
to improve the fuel quality of biomass. The torrefaction
process occurs in the absence of oxygen at tempera-
tures between 200-300
o
C for approximately 1 hour.
During the torrefaction process the biomass partially
decomposes to release volatiles and produce a solid
charred fuel. Following torrefaction, biomass tends
toward similar physical and chemical properties that
result in improved process control.
2.6.6 Assessment and Summary of Fuel Improvement
Options
Pre-treatments are generally at the early stage of
development, and many have not yet been implemented
commercially. The use of a pre-treatment may affect
the cost of acquiring a high quality biomass fuel,
depending on the technique. The ideal quantity of
additives to include in the preparation of the biomass
fuel has not yet been determined, although the use
of additives on the small scale has shown success.
Natural washing and over-wintering may require an
additional harvest if left to leach the nutrients back to
the field where the crop was grown. The acid wash is
the least attractive alternative since a process must be
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
developed in order to remove the leached nutrients for
recycling to the field. Acids also pose a significant
problem for disposal. Large scale washing of agricul-
tural residuals can reduce the problems caused by the
alkali components in the biomass prior to combustion
and may be economically feasible for industrial power
generating stations. Reduction of these alkali
compounds will also result in lower maintenance
costs. Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary
operations that produce a high quality fuel. Torrefac-
tion and pelletization can be used in combination with
over-wintering, washing and the use of additives.
2.7 Current Harvesting Practices
Generally, farmers do not harvest agricultural residuals
from their fields, however the exception is cereal
straws. If there is a market for residuals, farmers are
generally willing to harvest residuals, but are unsure
of the amount that can be sustainably removed
without risking future crop yields due to soil degrada-
tion. Many farmers rely on their agronomists for
advice on residuals removal and monitor the soil quality
following the crop rotation cycle. Current practices for
farming include leaving the residual material on the
field to decompose in order to reduce the impact of
multi-pass harvesting on the soil and for nutrient
recycling of the residual material back to the soil for
uptake by the next crop.
Most wheat straw is harvested and collected from the
field. A combine harvests the wheat and cuts the
straw. A baler follows the combine to harvest the
straw left in the field and the bales are picked up by a
tractor and cart. The bales are then stored on the edge
of the field or in covered storage. Wheat straw is
harvested since there is a market for straw as animal
bedding and in horticulture. There is currently not
a market for soybean stover. When soybeans are
harvested, the soybeans are collected by the combine
and the soybean plant is cut. The soybean stover is left
in the field or ploughed under. Soybean stover should
not be removed from the field unless a cover crop is
grown to replenish the soil and prevent soil erosion.
Corn is harvested by a combine that pinches the corn
ears from the stalk. The corn stalks are driven over by
the tractor, pulled down and left on the field. The corn
grains are gleaned from the cob and the cobs are also
returned to the field. The harvesting method differs if
the corn grown is for seed. Here, the corn ears are
pinched from the stalk and transported to a seed
production facility where it is gleaned on-site.
2.8 Residuals Harvesting Technologies
Farmers can use their existing equipment to harvest
and collect most agricultural residuals from the field.
The exception is the collection of corn cobs. Changes
to existing harvesting practices are necessary in order
to harvest residuals. To harvest residuals, farmers may:
Require additional passes of the field to bale stover
once the grain has been harvested. Wheat straw is
currently harvested and baled through a second pass.
Modify equipment to change the cutting height
or baling setup.
Have increased costs associated with extra
passes due to additional fuel usage, purchase of
attachments or modifications to equipment.
Extensive development is underway by many farm
equipment manufacturers to develop dedicated
residual harvesting equipment and attachments for
existing farm equipment. Modifications to existing
farm equipment include the development of large
balers to harvest corn stover since it is a bulky material
and the small balers used for straw bales may not be
able to handle the corn stover. There are currently many
corn cob collection equipment and technologies at the
prototype stage of development due to the expected
demand for corn cobs to produce cellulosic ethanol.
A prototype is full-scale equipment at the debugging
stage that is not yet commercially available. Since
there is currently not a large market for corn cobs,
most cobs are returned to the field and commer-
cial collection methods do not exist.
2.8.1 Development of Agricultural Residual Harvesting
Technologies
Farm harvesting equipment is being designed specifi-
cally for residuals harvesting, mainly for corn cobs and
corn stover. Residual harvesting equipment is at
various stages of development with production and
manufacturing encouraged by POET Ethanol in the
United States who were granted $80 million to
produce ethanol from corn cobs rather than corn grain
(Wehrspann, 2009). These new technologies will provide
farmers with the option to purchase a new combine or
the necessary attachments for their existing combines.
The new equipment is designed for 1-pass collection
of grain and residuals.
Combine-baler systems, shown in Figure 2.8, are
designed to collect and compress corn cobs and stover
into large bales in 1 pass. This produces bales with 3
ft by 4 ft by 8 ft dimensions and weigh approximately
1,500 lb. Corn cobs must be collected and baled with
stover because cobs cannot be baled alone. In this
system, a baler is attached behind the combine and
drops the bales onto the field for later removal by a
tractor and cart (Bernick, 2009).
The Duel Stream Harvester, presented in Figure 2.9,
incorporates a combine attachment to separate the
corn cobs from the corn stover. Through this attach-
ment, corn stover is returned to the field and the cobs
are collected in a wagon which is pulled by a tractor
next to the combine. The collected cobs can be left in
a pile at the end of the field (Wehrspann, 2009).
The Cob Harvest System, shown in Figure 2.10, collects
corn cobs above the combine. The cobs are sieved
from the stover towards the back of the combine and
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Figure 2.8 Combine-Baler Harvesting System to Bale
Corn Cobs and Corn Stover
Figure 2.9 Duel Stream Harvester System to Harvest
Corn Cobs
Figure 2.10 Cob Harvest System for the Collection of
Corn Cobs
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
,

F
u
e
l

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

O
p
t
i
o
n
s

&

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
transported to the top tank above the grain hopper.
When full, the corn cob tank folds over for emptying.
This system can be used alone with cobs piled at
the edge of the field or with a wagon alongside the
combine to receive cobs once the tank is full
(Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, 2009).
The Towable Stream Harvester, presented in Figure
2.11, collects corn cobs in a wagon pulled by the
combine. The combine cleans the stores the grains.
The chopper on the combine is disengaged so that the
stover and cobs are sent to the wagon where they are
separated. A screen is used to collect the corn cobs
which remain in the wagon and the stover is returned
to the field (Wehrspann, 2009).
2.8.2 Manufacturers Developing Residual Harvesting
Equipment
Many large farming equipment manufacturers are
involved in the development of agricultural residual
harvesting combine systems and attachments. These
manufacturers include:
Combines: AGCO, John Deere
Harvesters: Vermeer
Balers: Hesston
Bale Wagons: Mil-Stak, Stinger
Trailers: SmithCo, Titan, Trinity Trailer
Carts: Demco, Oxbo, Unverferth
Systems:
o Case IH: Combine and harvesting cart
o Claas Lexion: Combine with chopping corn
head
o Ceres: Combine with separator, blower and
storage tank
o John Deere: Combine with cob collection
system attachment
o Redekop: Cob harvester with cart
2.8.3 Expectations Regarding Residual Harvesting
Equipment
The equipment required to collect agricultural residu-
als is not complex and farmers currently own most of
the necessary equipment with their existing combines,
tractors and wagons. Residual harvesting machinery
consists mainly of belts, pneumatics, blowers and
screens to separate various components of the crop
such as the grain from the straw or stover and stover
from the cobs. Specialty residual harvesting equip-
ment is under development for corn cob collection and
is at the prototype stage. It is expected that there will
be minor problems associated with this machinery,
however, these issues will be quickly resolved.
Figure 2.11 Towable Stream Harvester for the
Collection of Corn Cobs
Agricultural residuals, when left in the field, perform a
number of important functions such as maintain soil
moisture, accommodate beneficial microbes, increase
soil organic matter and recycle plant nutrients. There-
fore, a certain amount of residuals must remain on
agricultural land to maintain the soil quality. However,
an excessive quantity of residuals may occur with
improved crop yields, and would lead to slower soil
warming in the planting season, difficulties operating
planting machinery, and increased emissions of green-
house gases due to the decay of residuals. The
optimum removal of residuals is very site-specific
depending on the crop and the soil management
practices of individual farmers. However, the estimate
of the quantity of total harvestable residuals in Ontario,
as a provincial average, was determined in this chapter
through the consideration of sustainability factors.
3.1 Soil Organic Matter
Soil is a dynamic and complex living eco-system.
Healthy soil is a fundamental requirement of the
food supply chain. Plants obtain nutrients from two
natural sources: organic matter and minerals. Soil
organic matter (SOM) has many more functions than
only providing nutrients to plants. SOM defines the
chemical and physical structures of the soil and its
overall health. Therefore, maintaining SOM at an
appropriate level is critical for increased productivity
of agricultural lands.
Three pools (passive, active and slow with different
potential decomposition rates), as shown in Figure 3.1,
are collectively called soil organic matter. Above and
below ground plant residues, animal manures and
compost organic materials in the passive pool help
reduce the surface wind speed and water runoff, main-
tain the soil moisture, and provide food to microbes.
The materials in the passive pool are gradually broken
down by microbes and along with partially decomposed
materials, form the active pool of SOM. The microor-
ganisms in this dynamic, living and rapidly changing
active pool are also responsible for binding small soil
particles into larger aggregates. Aggregation is
important for good soil structure, aeration, water
infiltration and resistance to erosion and crusting.
Microorganisms in the active pool increase soil porosity,
which is one of the most important natural activities
for the preparation of the soil for seeding in the next
growing season. Microbial activity also releases large
quantities of plant available nutrients and the stable
fraction of soil organic carbon (SOC), collectively
termed the slow pool as shown in Figure 3.1. This pool
decays at a very slow rate with a turnover time of
several decades to over a century, if not disturbed by
human activities such as ploughing. Well-decomposed
SOC and recycled nutrients are collectively named
humus which gives the dark colour to the surface soil.
In general, the darker the colour of the soil, the higher
the SOM level. SOM is generally calculated by
dividing the measured SOC by 0.58. SOC is approxi-
Chapter3
Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals
Soil organic matter (SOM)
Plant residuals and/or
manures
Microbes & partially
decomposed materials
Soil organic carbon (SOC)
& recycled nutrients
Passive pool Active pool Slow pool
Figure 3.1 Three Pools of Soil Organic Matter
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
mately 58% of SOM by mass (McConkey et al., 2005).
SOM is closely related to soil health. Healthy soils
produce healthy crops to nourish people. Fertilizers are
not a replacement for SOM. As stated earlier, SOM has
a number of functions, some of which are listed below,
related to soil health and crop production:
Provides nutrients to plants
Provides primary food sources necessary for
maintaining a large, diverse, and active
microbial population
Aggregates soil particles which increases the
porosity of the soil
Increases water infiltration which reduces water
runoff
Defines the chemical and physical properties of
the soil
Increases the water and nutrient holding capacity
of the soil
Acts as a buffer for farmers to postpone fertilizer
applications by a few years
Recycles nutrients from crop residuals
3.2 Soil Organic Matter Levels and Trends in Ontario
Plant residuals and other organic materials in the
passive pool are necessary to maintain SOM, since
these materials are food for microorganisms to produce
final, well-decomposed, stable SOC as well as produce
plant available nutrients. Before European settlers
introduced large-scale farming to Ontario, the lands in
the province were mainly occupied by native plant
species such as switchgrass, Indian grass, etc. Since
little or no biomass was collected from these native
species, almost all organic materials such leaves,
stems, and dead roots were returned to the soil. These
organic materials served as the passive pool of
SOM. This resulted in maintained or even increased
levels of SOM in Ontario soils. However, massive
farming began in the first half of the 20th century
which effectively lessened the SOM of agricultural
lands. Extensive farming is characterized by row
cropping of corn, soybeans and grains, intensive
tillage, and the return of fewer plant residuals to
the soil.
The lower quantities of plant residuals returned to the
soil and water erosion are major factors which lower
the SOM of the soil in the province. If there is no soil
erosion due to water runoff and intensive tillage, the
SOM of the soil should, in theory, stabilize at a certain
level for a given crop mix in the region. The plant-soil
system of modern farming gradually establishes a
new steady state in accordance with soil management
and cropping practices. Voroney (1988) estimated the
time required to reach the new steady state SOM level
for a typical crop mix in Ontario, which is shown in
Figure 3.2. It is important to note that the degradation
of the soil would continue if water erosion, mainly
associated with intensive tillage practices, is not
properly controlled.
There have been limited studies in Ontario with
regards to determining the average level of SOM for
different soil types and different land capability
classes. Table 3.1 provides selected SOM data for
different Ontario regions. The productivity of these
agricultural lands is relatively high according to the
sources consulted during this study. The correlation of
agricultural land SOM to land productivity is usually
not straightforward. One can easily argue that crop
yields have increased over the last three decades while
SOM has declined in the province. The increased crop
yields are also due to additional factors such as
genetic advances, fertilizer applications, and farming
practices. However, there is a threshold SOM
level to maintain healthy soil. This level is a function
of the climate of the region and the crop mix. The
threshold l evel woul d l i kel y be the subj ect of
debate among t he soil conservationists and
specialists. Loveland and Webb (2003) suggested that
a major threshold level is about 2% SOC (i.e. 3.4%
SOM) in temperate regions, below which a decline in
soil quality is possible. Farming practices such as
spreading manure, adopting conservation tillage,
growing cover crops, adding compost materials and
frequent rotations with hay and high yield biomass
crops are recommended by soil specialists for
lands with low SOM levels.
In a study conducted for Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, McConkey et al. (2005) estimated the
rate of SOC change of Canadian agricultural lands
using the Century simulation model by incorporating
generalized scenarios of past and current land-use
and management practices. These results indicate that
Canadas cropland has changed from a net SOC loss
position in 1995 and earlier years to a net gain since
1996. Most of the gains occurred on the Prairies, where
there has been increased adoption of reduced tillage
practices, reduced summer fallow and increased
hay crop production which have all contributed to
replenished soil organic matter. Overall, the mean rate
of SOC change on Canadian cropland in 2001 was
+29 kg/ha/yr. In Ontario, the SOC level rose in 1991,
as shown in Figure 3.3, likely due to the increased
adoption of conservation tillage and higher crop
yields. The SOC of Ontario agricultural lands
was nearly balanced in 2001. Ontario may have
lagged behi nd t he Canadi an average in net
SOC ga i n d u e t o t he hi gh per cent age of
low bi omass- yi el ding soybeans production in
the crop mix. Ontario produces about 75% of
Canadi an soybeans (personal communi cati on
with Soy 20/20 staff).
0 50 100 150 200
100
80
60
40
20
Cropping Period (Years)
No Erosion
Water Erosion
S
o
i
l

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

M
a
t
t
e
r

R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

(
%

o
f

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
)
Figure 3.2 Soil Organic Matter Trend with the
Introduction of Intensive Farming (Voroney, 1988)
No.
Soil Organic
Matter (%)
Location Soil Type Reference/Source
1
2
3
4
5
1.12
3.17
3.30
3.80
4.00
Delhi
Elora
Clinton
Chatham
Sarnia
Sandy
Silty
Loamy
Clay
Clay
Wanniarachchi et. al., 1999
Wanniarachchi et. al., 1999
Don Nott, Nott Farms
Ed VanDeWynckel, OSCIA
Tim Barkhouse, local farmer
Table 3.1 Soil Organic Matter Contents of Selected Farms in Ontario
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
3.3 Estimating Residuals Surplus/Deficit Using SOC
Balance
Carbon compounds contained in plant residuals,
above and below ground, are rapidly decomposed by
microbes during the first couple of years following the
plant growth, as shown in Figure 3.4. The actual
decomposition rate of carbon compounds in plant
residuals may differ slightly from the curve shown in
Figure 3.4 depending on the soil temperature, soil
moisture, soil type and other environmental factors.
Within 5-10 years, the percentage of carbon left in the
ground will decrease to 14-15%, which is generally
accepted as the stable form of carbon or SOC (Kong et
al., 2005). After this value has been reached, the decay
rate slows significantly, if the soil is not disturbed by
farming activities such as ploughing.
Soil loses its SOC through the normal decay of carbon
even in the absence of farming activities. This rate of
decay can be estimated from the equation developed
by Voroney et al. (1989) shown in Figure 3.4. Soil ero-
sion, due to wind and water run-off, also contributes
to the loss of SOC. If the tolerable limit, or T value,
of 6.6 tonne/ha of soil erosion recommended by
OMAFRA is used in this equation, the associated SOC
loss is 0.13 tonne/ha. Tillage activities also promote
SOC loss due to exposure of soil carbon to the air
which results in oxidation. Conventional tillage
practices, such as fall ploughing, increase SOC losses
in comparison with no-till or other conservation tillage
methods. On average, SOC loss due to conservation
tillage may be assumed to be 0.28 tonne/ha based on
models developed by Gollany et al. (2010). The three
major routes of SOC loss per hectare of typical
agricultural land using conservation tillage practices
are shown in Figure 3.5.
Total SOC losses from a hectare of typical agricultural
land using conservation tillage practices are approxi-
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Canada
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Ontario
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
o
i
l

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

C
a
r
b
o
n

C
h
a
n
g
e

(
k
g

h
a
-
1

y
r
-
1
)
Year Year
Figure 3.3 Average Soil Organic Carbon Change in Ontario and Canada (McConkey et al., 2005)
mately 0.55 tonne/year. As shown in Figure 3.5, nearly
9.6 tonnes of plant residuals at 15% moisture content
are required to replenish the SOC losses of 0.55
tonne/ha/year, in order to maintain the SOM of the land
at 3.4%. Both above and below ground residuals
contribute to the replacement of SOC in the soil. The
estimate is based on the assumption that 45% of dry
plant residuals are carbon and 15% of this carbon is
converted into the stable form or SOC. The total SOC
content of the land, estimated in Figure 3.5, is for the
top 30 cm of soil. Field crops which produce more than
9.6 tonne/ha of plant residuals provide surplus residu-
als that are available for harvesting. However, field
crops with less than 9.6 tonne/ha of plant residuals cre-
ate SOC deficits which should be replenished by surplus
residuals from other crops through rotations or other
organic materials such as livestock manure or compost.
Table 3.2 provides the theoretical harvestable amount
of residuals for the four major field crops that repre-
sent over 85% of the total field crop production in
Ontario. The estimate of root biomass materials are
based on Voroney (2010) and personal communication
with personnel from the Ontario Soil and Crop
Improvement Association (OSCIA). Grain corn, which
is the highest biomass yielding crop, offers the
largest potential quantity of residuals for harvest
followed by winter wheat. Hay has deep roots in
comparison with annual crops and provides some
theoretically harvestable residuals. Practically,
however, residuals would not be available for energy
use. Soybeans, which are relatively small plants, need
more plant or other organic materials to maintain soil
SOM. Crop residuals deficits due to soybean produc-
tion are usually replenished by residuals surplus from
grain corn or winter wheat through crop rotation.
Farmers also periodically add livestock manure to
the soil to replenish SOC. Therefore, the amount of
agricultural residuals, which could be sustainably
removed from farms, depends on the crop rotation
schedule and other farm practices of individual
farmers. If a particular farm is on a steep slope, soil
erosion due to water run-off may be an issue which may
also reduce the theoretically harvestable amount.
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Years (t)
%

C
a
r
b
o
n

l
e
f
t

i
n

t
h
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
SOC Region
y=0.72 e
-1.4t
+0.28 e
-0.081t
Figure 3.4 Decomposition of Carbon in Plant Residuals (Voroney et al, 1989)
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
3.4 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals in
Ontario
The estimate of the total residuals that can be sustain-
ably harvested, based on individual farmers and farm
characteristics, can be a daunting task due to the
dynamics of change from crop rotations and the lack
of detailed data. However, a macro analysis at the
provincial and regional levels can be performed based
on the acreages of field crops. Table 3.3 provides resid-
ual surplus or deficit calculations associated with each
major field crop in the province. As mentioned earlier,
the residual surplus/deficit is calculated assuming that
3.4% SOM is maintained. The hectares harvested and
the percentage of unharvested areas are seven-year
(2003-2009) averaged data, and compiled from field
crops statistics on the OMAFRA web site. Root
bi omass from other field crops are estimated
assuming the same ratios apply to each type (i.e.
cereal or grain or beans) of field crop.
The total residual surplus from field crops in the
province in 2009 is 1.3 M tonnes, which is approxi-
mately 10% of the total above ground residuals. This
surplus translates to 20 kg/ha of SOC gain in 2009,
which is likely in agreement with the data estimated by
McConkey et al. (2005) if the trend presented in Figure
3.3 continues. It is interesting to note that only three
Plant residuals
(9.6 tonne at 15% MC)
Above ground &
below ground
0.55 tonnes SOC
1 hectare land
3.4% SOM
95 tonne of SOC
Normal carbon
decomposition
(0.14 tonne SOC)
Loss due to erosion
(0.13 tonne SOC)
Loss due to
conservation tillage
(0.28 tonne SOC)
Total losses (0.55 tonne SOC)
Figure 3.5 SOC Balance for One Hectare of Agricultural Land
Note: SOC loss due to conventional tillage can be greater than 0.55 tonne/ha/yr
Crop Grain Corn Winter Wheat Soybeans Hay
5.88
8.82
14.70
9.60
5.11
5.23
8.72
13.95
9.60
4.35
9.80
0.20
10.00
9.60
0.41
3.29
2.92
6.21
9.60
-3.39
Roots (tonne/ha)
Above ground (tonne/ha)
Total residuals (tonne/ha)
Required residuals (tonne/ha)
to maintain 3.4% SOM
Theoretical harvestable
residuals (tonne/ha)
Table 3.2 Theoretically Harvestable Plant Residuals (15% Moisture Content) for Major Field Crops in Ontario
field crops, namely hay, grain corn and winter wheat,
produce more plant residuals than are required to
maintain SOM at the 3.4% level. Some wheat straw
is taken from the field for use as bedding materials
for livestock. However, the majority of used bedding
from livestock farms is returned to agricultural land,
so this unlikely affects the net surplus of residuals in
the province. Residual surplus/deficit analysis was
also completed for each Ontario agricultural census
region (details of counties and an agricultural census
region map are given in Appendix B) to determine if
a particular region is in a residuals deficit. Table 3.4
identifies the top ten field crops in each Ontario
agricultural region. The last two rows of Table 3.4
suggest that farmers in all regions of the province
grow field crops which produce surplus residuals
(hay, grain corn and winter wheat) on the majority of
field crop land. The field crop hectares in Table 3.4 are
five-year (2005-2009) averaged data compiled using
the field crops statistics on the OMAFRA web site.
Another important factor that should be considered
in the estimate of sustainably harvestable agricultural
residuals is that organic materials, specifically
livestock manures, are added to agricultural fields.
This allows for the removal of more plant residuals
for use in energy applications. The majority of hay
produced in Ontario is utilized by livestock farms in
the province. The indigestible fibre in animal feed
is returned to the soil by spreading manure and
used animal bedding on the land. Conservatively
it is assumed that each cow, on average per day,
produces 35 kg of manure with a 70% moi sture
content. When dried, the indigestible content
of t hi s manur e i s 20% ( sour ces: OMAFRA
f act sheet on anaerobic digestion basics,
Hay
Soybeans
Grain corn
Winter wheat
Fodder corn
Barley
Spring wheat
Mixed grain
Dry field beans
Oats
Fall rye*
Tobacco*
Canola
971,082
893,580
692,319
366,975
122,788
82,822
61,191
53,499
29,381
37,883
24,586
11,032
17,293
2.73
0.62
2.99
0.05
1.57
5.47
0.39
13.65
0.84
13.46
3.00
1.00
5.35
397
-3,029
3,537
1,597
-432
-141
-163
-212
-171
-56
-96
-60
-110
55
-12
197
1
57
-2
0
-19
-1
-4
-2
0
-5
452
-3,041
3,734
1,598
-375
-143
-164
-231
-172
-60
-98
-61
-115
1,324
Field Crop
Total
Surplus
Residuals
('000 tonne)
Hectares
Harvested
% Un-
harvested
Area
Surplus
Residuals
('000 tonne)
Surplus
Residuals from
Un-harvested
('000 tonne)
Provincial Total
Table 3.3 Field Crops with a Surplus/Deficit of Residuals in Ontario in 2009
* Percentage unharvested area for fall rye and tobacco are not available and thus assumed.
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
w w w . a g e n g . n d s u . n o d a k . e d u / a n i m a l
wa s t e ma n agement/manure_production.htm,
www.extension.org/pages/Manure_Production_and_
Characteristics). Therefore, approximately 1.5 M
tonnes of indigestible fibre is produced every
year by cattle farms in Ontario. Returning live-
stock manure to the farm would increase the
amount of sustainably harvestable agricultural
residuals in Ontario regions as presented in
Table 3.5. The number of cattle in the agricultural
census regi ons of t he provi nce used i n t hi s
est i mat e i s f i ve year ( 2005- 2009) averaged
dat a obtained through the li vestock statistics
section of the OMAFRA web site.
Therefore the amount of sustainably harvestable
agricultural residuals in the province in 2009 is 2.8 M
tonne. This is approximately 20% of the total above
ground residuals produced in the province. The impact
of removing 20% of the total above ground residuals
on soil quality is expected to be minimal based on the
soil SOM budget analysis completed in this study.
Continuous monitoring of soil health, as currently
practised by the majority of farmers, through periodic
measurements of SOM and other soil parame-
ters, is essential to the utilization of crop residuals as
a bio-fuel.The farming community will experience an
increase in revenues due to the sale of crop residuals.
The added benefit of incorporating best farming
practices, such as growing winter cover crops, is a
potential soil health improvement.
In general, the quantity of sustainably harvestable
residuals would be higher in the future with improved
crop yields. Genetic advancements in crops, specifically
grain corn, have increased the corn yield by 100% over
past 30 years (Ontario Federation of Agriculture), i.e.
an approximate 3% yield improvement annually. Crop
yield improvements return more biomass or organic
materials to soil which increases the SOM level.
Field Crop Eastern Central Western Southern Northern Total
Hay
Soybeans
Grain corn
Winter wheat
Fodder corn
Barley
Spring wheat
Mixed grain
Dry field beans
Oats
Total
Surplus Crops
Area (% of
Total)
Surplus/Deficit
Area Ratio
241,239
92,526
95,636
4,785
25,126
11,676
24,291
1,368
3,854
5,822
506,324
67.48
2.07
179,360
62,834
61,830
33,069
12,777
9,377
1,960
2,721
7,166
7,709
378,802
72.40
2.62
332,907
233,117
212,032
138,105
55,984
42,842
29,320
30,291
32,291
9,765
1,116,656
61.17
1.58
132,162
513,603
329,676
195,117
27,182
3,951
5,239
25,045
3,028
8,364
1,243,368
52.84
1.12
101,781
1,563
842
1,798
1,441
8,429
5,830
0
2,178
5,182
129,045
80.92
1.12
987,449
903,644
700,016
372,874
122,510
76,275
66,640
59,425
48,518
36,842
3,374,194
60.06
1.57
Table 3.4 Top Ten Field Crop Hectares in Ontario Agricultural Census Regions
Fi gure 3.6 predicts the quantity of sustainably
harvestable residuals with 1 and 2% crop yield
improvement scenarios in the near future.
Therefore, the total sustainably harvestable residuals
would increase from 2.8 M tonnes in 2009 to 4.5 M
tonnes and 6.2 M tonnes in 2014 for 1% and 2% crop
yield improvements, respectively. These crop yield
improvements are based on the 2009 yield. The
number of cattle in the province in 2014 is assumed
to be the same as in 2009. The residual-to-crop ratio
may not increase linearly with the gain in crop
yield for all crops.
For i nst ance, t he hei ght of wi nt er wheat
has remai ned r el at i vel y const ant wi t h t he
i ncr eased gr ai n yi el d duri ng the l ast 20-30
years ( per sonal communi cati on wi th farmers).
However, the farming community has noted
that today, the hei ght of some corn vari eti es
are over 10 feet compared to 5-6 feet 20 years
ago. This increase in height results in greater
residual return to the soil. Plant residuals from
grain corn represent over 4 5 % of t he t ot a l
agr i c ul t ur al r es i dual s pr oduced i n Ontario.
Monsanto and industry specialists expect that the
grain corn yield could be doubled in the next 20
years due to recent advancements in crop breeding
and genetics (http://www.ethanolproducer.com/
article.jsp?article_id=3330, personal communication
with Dale Cowan and Jim Campbell, AGRIS Co-op-
eratives Ltd.). The A Billion Ton Vision report (Perlack
et al., 2005) prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
assumed an average 50% increase in yield for
al l crops by 2030 (i.e. simple 2% annual yield
improvement).
The Billion Ton Vision report also predicted the
residual-to-crop ratio of soybeans to escalate from
current level of 1:1 to 2:1 by 2030. Based on these
facts, an average 1% increase in crop yields with a
constant residual-to-crop ratio is a conservative
assumption. Applying this projection to Ontario in
2014 when OPG may require biomass fuels, the
quantity of sustainably harvestable residuals will be
4.5 M tonnes, as shown in Figure 3.6. This biomass
quantity still represents approximately 20% of
the total above ground residuals produced in the
province in 2014.
Ontario Region
Harvestable Residuals
(000 tonne) without
Considering Fibre from
Livestock Manure
Number of
Cattle
Harvestable
Residuals (000 tonne)
Considering Fibre
from Livestock
Manure
Eastern
Central
Western
Southern
Northern
Provincial Total
(Adjusted with all Field
Crops)
134
221
448
698
-1
1,324
356,412
249,563
918,833
348,937
108,906
1,982,651
407
412
1,152
965
82
2,824
Table 3.5 Sustainably Harvestable Agricultural Residuals in Ontario in 2009
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
3. 5 Soi l Erosi on i n Ontari o and Removal of
Agricultural Residuals
As mentioned previously, the quantity of sustainably
harvestable agricultural residuals is very site specific
and depends on the crop rotation, soil type, slope
length-gradient of the land, amount of precipitation,
wind speed, weather conditions, tillage methods and
other farm management practices. Although soil
erosion due to wind could be a serious issue in some
areas, such as Saskatchewan, it is well controlled in
Ontario given the topology of the province and easy-
to-establish wind breaks (personal communication
with the farming community). In Ontario, an important
factor to consider regarding residuals removal is soil
erosion due to water run-off. Agricultural residuals
not only increase the soil organic matter but protect
from surface soil loss due to water run-off. Soil and
the associated SOM loss from agricultural land
due to heavy preci pi tation and steep land slope
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
y

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
a
b
l
e

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

(
M

t
o
n
n
e
)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year
1% Annual Yield Improvement
2% Annual Yield Improvement
Figure 3.6 Sustainably Harvestable Residuals in Ontario with Crop Yield Improvement Scenarios
are significant in some jurisdictions such as Iowa
( ht t p: / / www. i a. nr cs. usda. gov/ news/ newsr e
leases/2004/MayRains.html). Soil erosion from an acre
of agricultural land can be estimated by using the
Universal Soil Loss Equations (USLE) as follow
(OMAFRA factsheet on USLE):
A = R x K x LS x C x TM x P
where:
A = Soil erosion due to water run-off in
tons/acre/year
R = Rainfall and runoff factor (90 to 120
for most Ontario regions)
K = Soil erodibility factor (0.02 to 0.43,
depending on soil type and SOM level)
LS = Slope length-gradient factor (0.0693
to 7.8069, depending on land slope
and length)
C = Crop/vegetation factor (0.02 to 0.5,
depending on the crop type)
TM = Tillage method factor (0.25 to 1.0,
depending on tillage practices)
P = Support practice factor (0.25 to 1.0,
depending on erosion control
practices)
Soil erosion A, is estimated by multiplying all the
factors in the above equation. Higher factor values
result in greater soil loss due to water run-off.
The tol erable limit of soil erosion, or T value,
recommended by OMAFRA is less than 3 tons/
acre/year. The values of the crop/vegetation factor, C,
of different crops are given in Table 3.6. Hay represents
approximately 30% of the total field crops in Ontario,
and has the best C factor at 0.02. This indicates that
hay protects against soil loss due to its deep roots and
perennial nature. It is interesting to note that water
erosion associated with soybeans production, which
has a C factor of 0.5, results in an increase of only
20% compared to grain corn, with a C factor of 0.4.
Grain corn produces above ground residuals at 8.82
tonne/ha, which is about three times more than the
above ground residuals produced by soybeans at 2.92
tonne/ha. Therefore, leaving excess residuals in the
field to reduce soil erosion from water run-off will not
provide additional benefits beyond a certain quantity.
In fact, tillage practices result in a more pronounced
effect on soil erosion due to water run-off than the
crop type. This is demonstrated in Table 3.7 through the
estimate of soil loss from a sample of agricultural
land in London, Ontario, for different tillage practices.
Soil loss due to water run-off is below tolerable limit
T value of 3 tons/acre/year for both no till and ridge
till practices. However, a conventional tillage practice
of fall ploughing could substantially increase soil loss
to 8.17 tons/acre/year, well above the T value.
Therefore, adoption of conservation tillage practices
is essential for the utilization of agricultural residuals
as a biofuel as well as to maintain the soil quality.
The current adoption rate in Ontario is believed to be
approximately 75%, based on the information
obtained from agricultural experts and the farming
community i n thi s study. Thi s adopti on rate i s
expected to increase with the rising crude oil price.
The slope length-gradient factor, LS, can range from
0.0693 to 7.8069, depending on the topology of the
land. The worst value, 7.8069, is for agricultural land
Factor C Crop Type
Grain Corn
Silage Corn, Beans & Canola
Cereals (Spring & Winter)
Seasonal Horticultural Crops
Fruit Trees
Hay and Pasture
0.40
0.50
0.35
0.50
0.10
0.02
Table 3.6 Crop/Vegetation Factor C for Different
Crops (Source: OMAFRA)
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
that is 3,000 ft. in length with a 10% slope. The majority
of agricultural land in Ontario has a relatively low
gradient in comparison with other regions such as
Iowa. Farm land with steep slopes may represent less
than 10% of the total agricultural land in Ontario.
Farmers manage their greater sloped land well by
adopting best practices such as cross-slope cropping,
growing continuous hay, contour farming, planting
hay strips in the field, etc. A conclusion of this study is
that soil erosion should have a minimal impact on the
total quantity of sustainably harvestable agricultural
residuals in Ontario if conservation tillage practises are
widely adopted. For most Ontario farm land utilizing
conservation tillage practices, the amount of plant
residuals left in the field to maintain the SOM level
should also keep soil erosion due to water run-off
below the tolerable limit.
Parameter Value Comment
Rainfall and runoff factor, R
Soil erodibility factor, K
Slope length-gradient factor, LS
Crop/vegetation factor, C
Tillage method factor, TM
Support practice factor, P
Soil loss, A, with no till
Soil loss, A, with ridge till
Soil loss, A, with fall plough
Site-specific factors
100
0.3
0.6811
0.4
0.25
0.35
1.0
0.75
Soil losses (tons/acre/year)
2.04
2.86
8.17
From London, Ontario, weather station
Clay loam soil
Land with 800 ft length and 3% slope
Grain corn
No till
Ridge till
Fall plough
Cross-slope cropping
Below T value of 3 tons/acre/year
Below T value of 3 tons/acre/year
Well above T value of 3 tons/acre/year
Table 3.7 Estimated Soil Loss Due to Water Run-off
A number of processes must be completed in order to
acquire a high quality biomass fuel at the power
generating station gate. These processes include the
procurement of the agricultural residual fuel supply,
residual harvesting, processing of the residuals to a set
fuel specification as well as transportation of the
residuals between various points from the field to the
generating station gate. The acquisition of a large
biomass fuel supply is a collaborative process involving
many parties at various points along the supply chain
with the goal to obtain a usable final fuel product.
This chapter describes the various components of an
agricultural residual supply chain beginning with the
famers and ending at the generating station gate.
Sources of potential contamination are identified
which may affect the fuel quality. Various models will
be presented along with users of biomass feedstocks
who have an established supply chain. Potential
suppliers are identified along with their strengths and
weakness in supplying or processing biomass for fuel.
4.1 Major Supply Chain Components
The supply chain to acquire agricultural residuals for
fuel involves a number of stages and organizations.
The processes involved in the acquisition and delivery
of biomass fuel must be effectively coordinated in
order to produce a high quality fuel in a timely manner.
4.1.1 The Biomass Supply
The biomass supplier is the first stage in the supply
chain. This is where the biomass is produced; the
crop is harvested for food or feed and residuals are
harvested for use in other applications. Corn, soybeans
and wheat are the major crops produced in Ontario.
Since most farmers grow these crops in their rotation
cycle, there are no crop establishment costs or
additional time associated with agricultural residual
production. These residuals may be available as a
fuel on a relatively shorter lead time compared to
energy crops.
Generally, suppliers of agricultural residuals are the
farmers who grow the crop or organizations which
represent the farmers. However, the biomass supply may
be acquired from third party harvesters who contract
with the farmer to harvest the residuals on their behalf.
4.1.2 Biomass Processing and Storage
The bulky nature of biomass and limited storage space
at OPG Generating Stations for raw biomass requires
biomass processing and storage at many centralized
facilities near the farms involved in the harvest of
residuals. Biomass processing technologies employed
may include drying, pre-treatment application (washed
before the processing facility or additives added at the
facility), torrefaction and pelletization. Densification of
the biomass through pelletization results in a fuel that
is 4-10 times denser than unpelleted biomass. Biomass
may also be densified into briquettes. Densificaton of
the biomass results in a reduced transportation cost
from the pellet mill to the generating station gate, since
more biomass can be transported in one shipment. It
also allows for reduced space required for the storage
of the biomass fuel. Torrefaction eliminates the need
for covered storage of the residual fuel. This may result
in the replacement of coal piles at generating stations
with torrefied residual pellet piles.
Centralized pelletizing and processing plants have a key
role in providing a fuel which meets the specifications
of the generating station. Blending of residuals from
various sources reduces the effect of inconsistencies
of the biomass chemical characteristics due to growing
conditions on the farm. This blending capability
al so provides OPG with the flexibility to change
the fuel specifications.
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Chapter4
Supply Chain Analysis & Potential Suppliers
The establishment of storage and processing facilities
for agricultural residuals are necessary for the devel-
opment of an effective supply chain. A number of
pelletization plants exist within Ontario, mainly in the
northern region of the province, to pelletize wood and
forestry residuals from forestry operations. Small
scale pelletizers are located in southern Ontario, where
the majority of agricultural residuals are produced. If
agricultural residuals are to be used as a fuel in
Ontario, processing and pelletizing facilities must be
constructed in southern regions where the fuel supply
will be acquired. Demonstration facilities in southern
Ontario may be necessary to attract investments to
develop the processing component of the supply chain.
Once funding has been acquired, construction of a
processing facility requires approximately 18 months.
4.1.3 Biomass Transportation
Agricultural residuals must be transported between
various points along the supply chain. Assuming that
a centralized processing facility is a component of the
supply chain, harvested residuals must be transported
from the farm to a processing facility, and then from
the processing facility to the generating station. Biomass
may also be transported directly to the generating
station to be used in an unprocessed form or
processed on-site.
Agricultural products grown in Ontario are shipped
across Canada and the United States through estab-
lished routes and modes, which include truck, rail and
marine transport. The same modes and similar routes
may be used for the transport of residual materials to
the processing facilities or generating stations.
Processing facilities are ideally located close to the
producing farms, within 100 km, to reduce the cost of
transporting bulky residual materials. It is expected
that trucks or tractors will be used to transport the
residuals from the farm to the processing facility. For
short distances, the processed biomass fuel would be
transported to the generating station by truck,
otherwise the biomass may be transported to a rail or
marine terminal for shipping.
Transportation of residuals to OPG by truck may result
in local traffic congestion due to the number of trucks
necessary to deliver the required fuel quantities.
Currently, rail lines do not exist at the Nanticoke and
Lambton Generating Stations to receive biomass fuel
from other locations in the province. However, both
generating stations are located along the Great Lakes
Seaway System and currently receive coal shipments
by marine vessels. This is a viable option to receive
residual fuel shipments. Marine shipping infrastructure
is in place at the OPG Generating Stations the
existing coal handling systems can be used with little
modification to convert to biomass fuel handling.
Marine shipping also has the lowest transportation
cost and has less environmental impact than truck
and rail transport.
4.2 Potential Sources of Residuals Contamination
Along the Supply Chain
There are many possible sources of agricultural
residuals contamination between production and use
as a fuel. These contaminants will alter the chemical
characteristics of the raw biomass due to the inclusion
of new foreign materials. Based on the contamination
source, the fuel may be contaminated after leaving the
aggregator where the biomass was processed to
meet the set fuel specification. Care must be taken
throughout the supply chain to ensure that the fuel
quality is maintained during transport and delivery
to the generating station.
Figure 4.1 identifies the various stages of the supply
chain and the possible sources of contamination at
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
each stage. These sources can add additional inorganic
materials to the chemical characteristics of the biomass
or render it as unusable. Blending of residuals from
different sources may minimize the effects of contam-
ination from a particular location on the final fuel product.
At the production site, a number of possible contam-
inant sources were identified. These include:
The use of pesticides and fertilizers which result
in high levels of nutrients absorbed by the plant
or on the surface of the plant
Characteristics of the farm including soil pH
which may increase the uptake of specific
nutrients from the soil
The proximity to industrial sources which may
release emissions to the air and water that can
be absorbed by the plant
The level and type of farming activity in the field
such as specific tillage practices
The location of the plant in the field where plants
closer to the road experience greater exposure
to automobile emissions and road salt.
During the harvest of agricultural residuals,
contamination may occur due to:
Equipment cleanliness since old residuals, rust,
soil and stones may be present in the carts
and wagons used in harvesting
The application of a pre-treatment on the farm
where soil may be collected with the residuals
if the biomass is over-wintered or washed in
the field
Storage of the residuals at the farm and if the
biomass was stored on the edge of the field or
on a concrete pad sheltered from the weather
Spoilage of residuals if rotting begins in the
field, in piles or in the bales, and the set
collection methods applied incorrectly.
Contamination of agricultural residuals may occur
between the farm and the processing facility and
between the processing facility and the generating
station. This may occur due to the presence of residual
materials from previous biomass or unrelated dry
cargo shipments (such as ores, cement, etc.); spoilage
of residuals in shipping containers if the biomass is
improperly dried; shipping containers which have not
been cleaned and are infested with insects or rodents,
and container decomposition where rust and paint
flakes from container walls.
At the aggregator, contamination of agricultural
residuals may be through spoilage in silos if the
biomass is not properly dried; the condition of containers
and conveying lines where remains of previously
processed residuals or inorganic materials may
become mixed with current residuals; storage container
decomposition where rust or paint flakes may be
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Figure 4.1 Potential Contamination Sources Along the Supply Chain
incorporated into the fuel, and erosion of metal
components on equipment due to conveying,
chopping, and processing of residuals that results in
the addition of fine metal particles.
4.2.1 Contamination During Marine Shipping
Marine shipping poses a high risk of contamination
due to the large volume of residuals shipped in one
load. The two main risks are spoilage of biomass
residuals and dry cargo residues within cargo holds
from previous shipments of inorganic materials.
Spoilage of agricultural residuals may occur in cargo
holds through a number of methods. Contaminated
residues present, either in the current shipment or
from the previous shipment, can lead to the spread of
mould through the residuals. High moisture levels due
to inadequate blending of biomass with varying mois-
ture levels, improperly dried biomass with a moisture
content greater than 15.5%, and condensation of the
ship walls may result in rotted fuel shipments. Water
may also enter cargo holds through welds or punctures,
deck openings and leaking valves which can partially
flood the holds containing residuals fuel. This spoilage
applies to unprocessed and pelletized agricultural
residuals (Canadian Grain Commission, 2009).
Cargo residues are dry cargo materials that remain in
cargo holds after the ship has been unloaded. In a
study for the US Coast Guard, it was determined that
0.0002% of the total amount of dry cargo materials
shipped on the Great Lakes become cargo residues.
This is equivalent to 88 tonne/year of residues based
on Ontario shipments. These residues are generally
washed into the lakes (Mittag et al., 2008).
Ontario currently ships significant quantities of coal,
iron, limestone, salt, stone/cement/sand mixtures,
cement, and petroleum coke (Statistics Canada, 2007).
If present as cargo residues, contamination by these
materials will contribute to increased ash content
and deposit formation in the boiler.
Contamination due to transport, either through marine
shipping or transport truck, is expected to contribute
the most to residual fuel contamination. To estimate
the amount of contamination expected, as a worst case
scenario for both marine shipping and transport by
truck, potassium was considered to be an example
contaminate due to its effects on deposit formation
during biomass combustion. The potassium content
of corn stover was used to determine the contribution
of contaminate potassium to the ash, since the analysis
in Chapter 2 shows that it has the highest potassium
content of all the residual materials. Figure 4.2
provides the details of the calculation.
The amount of biomass shipped on a lake freighter
is approximately 30,000 tonnes, with a maximum
percentage of cargo residuals remaining in the hold
of 0.0002%. Corn stover has the highest potassium
content in the ash of 39 wt%. Assuming 5% of the
biomass becomes ash and all the residuals from
shipping are potassium, the contribution of potassium
due to contamination is an insignificant 0.004 wt%.
To determine the contamination that could be expected
due to transport by truck, a truck surface area of 168
m
2
was calculated assuming a 0.5 mm layer of
residue remaining on all surfaces of the container.
This would result in 0.07 tonne of potassium residue
in the truck. The potassium content from corn stover
was used in the calculation, which indicates that
contamination due to residue in the truck would
contribute an additional 3.5 wt% for a maximum
potassium content in the ash of 42.5 wt%.
This calculation shows that the contribution of
cont aminates due to shipping is small. It also
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
i ndi cates that the risk of contamination is higher
commercially through the use of transport trucks
rather than marine vessels due to the increased
surface area to volume ratio of the container.
4.2.2 Mitigation of Transportation Contamination
Spoilage of grain, and therefore agricultural residuals,
is the greatest cause of cargo damage during
marine transport. To minimize contamination and
spoilage during transport, there are standards and
procedures that have been developed and can
be modified and appl i ed to the shi pment of
agri cul tural residuals. There is a standard that has
been developed for marine transport of grain. This
standard can be adapted for agricultural residuals
for application at the farm site for container use,
at the processing facility for storage, and for trans-
port by truck, marine vessel or rail.
The standard for grain shipments mandates that there
must be a government inspection of a ships cargo
holds to ensure that grain will not be damaged or
deteriorate as a result of the condition and cleanliness
of the cargo compartment. The cargo holds must be
clean, dry, free of infestation by insects and rodents as
well as free from toxic substances and odours prior to
loading. If the cargo holds contain residues of
fertilizers, previous grains, loose cement or debris, the
hold is declared unfit for loading. Cleaning procedures
have been developed for cargo holds and inspectors
can mandate fumigation to rid the holds of infestations
(Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2006).
4.3 Potential Feedstock Suppliers
Ontario has a large agricultural sector with
thousands of f armer s produci ng agri cul t ural
resi dual s as co- product s of their operations. A
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Contamination by Potassium
Marine Shipping
Mass of biomass shipped: 30,000 tonne
Maximum cargo residue: 0.0002%
Maximum potassium in ash without contamination: 39 wt%
Maximum potassium addition due to contamination: 0.004 wt%
Maximum potassium content in ash: 39.004 wt% (no significant increase)
Truck Transport
Surface area of a truck container: 168 m
2
Cargo residue remaining on truck surface: 0.084 m
3
Remaining potassium: 0.07 tonne
Maximum potassium in ash without contamination: 39 wt%
Contamination by potassium due to trucking: 3.5 wt%
Maximum potassium content in ash: 42.5 wt% (significant increase)
There is a greater risk of contamination from trucking rather than marine shipping due to the higher
surface area to volume ratio of the truck container.
Figure 4.2 Estimate of Maximum Contamination During Residuals Transport
number of potential suppliers of agricultural
residuals have been identified. These potential
suppliers include:
Individual Farmers: produce residuals as a
co-product of their crop production.
The Grain Farmers of Ontario: is the largest
commodity group in Ontario and represents
28,000 soybean, corn and wheat farmers. These
farmers cultivate over 5 million acres of land in
Ontario. This generates $2.5 billion in farm gate
receipts. This group was formed through a
merger of the Ontario Soybean Growers, Ontario
Corn Producers Association and Ontario Wheat
Producers Marketing Board. The goal of this new
group is to provide farm members with new
markets for Ontario corn, wheat and soybeans.
Seed Producers: glean corn at the seed corn
production facility which results in corn cob
biomass that has not been introduced to
contamination by soil during the harvest.
There are 6 seed corn production companies
in Ontario.
A surplus supply of wood pellets exists in British
Columbia. British Columbia has 9 pellet mills that
have been supplying the European market with pellets
produced from wood infested by the Mountain Pine
Beetle. Sales of the BC pellets have stalled due to the
decreased value of the Euro. British Columbia pellet
mills would like to sell their wood pellets to Ontario for
use in power generation. One of the pelletization
companies, Pacific BioEnergy Corporation, has stated
that Ontario cannot close the market to pellets
produced in other provinces (McKay, 2010).
4.3.1 Biomass Acquisition & Harvesting Options
To acquire the biomass fuel supply required to meet
electricity demand, OPG has two main contract
options which include direct contracts with individual
farmers or contracts with aggregators who then
contract with individual farmers. To acquire agricultural
residuals, the harvesting options include:
1. One field pass by the farmer to harvest the crop
and the residuals using additional or specialized
equipment.
2. Two field passes by the farmer. The first pass is
to harvest the crop and the second pass is to
harvest the residuals.
3. Two field passes to harvest the crop and
residuals. The crop is harvested by the farmer
and a third party harvests the residuals on
behalf of the farmer.
Fuel prepared from agricultural residuals must
meet specifications set by OPG, which may include
specified values related to the heat of combustion,
ash content, particle size, moisture content and selected
chemical element contents. Biomass and fuels which
do not meet this specification can be rejected or
subjected to a reduction in price as indicated in supply
agreements. Challenges are associated with the
harvesting of residuals which may include the possible
purchase of combine attachments and the short crop
harvesting time window. To assist farmers, third party
harvesters are an attractive option to harvest residuals.
4.3.2 Third Party Harvesters
Third party harvesters are responsible for harvesting
residuals on the farm following the harvest of the
crop. These harvesters utilize their own harvesting
equipment to collect the residuals and may transport
the materials to the processing facilities. Harvesting
procedures can be tailored to the specific needs of the
farmer to ensure sustainability of the crop land.
An example of a third party harvester is Pacific Power-
Stock, located in the United States. Originally founded
as Pacific Ag Solutions in 1998 as a haying operation,
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
a need was recently identified for the harvest of
residuals to meet the demands of large scale biofuel
and bioenergy producers. Thus, the affiliated Pacific
PowerStock began operations in 2009. Pacific Power-
Stock designs, develops and maintains dedicated supply
chains for biomass energy facilities based on the needs
of the customer. This group owns and operates a large
fleet of tractors, combines, balers and specialized
trailers across the United States. This network of
harvesters allows for the rapid deployment of harvest-
ing capability when an increase in harvesting capacity
is needed. Harvesting process options available to
the farmer include biomass loading and unloading,
transportation from the farm to the processing facility
or end user, combining of the field, storage of the
biomass and alternative harvesting options. A pellet mill
has also been constructed for dedicated pelletiziation of
purpose grown crops and residuals. Pacific PowerStock is
positioned to operate as a third party harvester in Canada.
4.4 Potential Aggregators and Processors
Aggregators and processors are intermediates
between the farmer and the final user of the processed
residual material. Aggregators and processors are
involved in the collection of the agricultural residual
material and upgrading it to a specified, useable form
for the generating station. This group is responsible
for the collection, drying, pre-treatment, torrefaction,
pelletization and storage of the agricultural residuals
as well as monitoring of the processed biomass fuel
quality to ensure it meets the fuel specifications.
Establishment of the supply chain through a small
number of aggregators and processors, rather than
a large number of farmers, reduces the number of
contracts to manage by OPG. OPG would contract
with the aggregators and processors who would
contract with individual farmers. Currently, these large
scale residual processing facilities do not exist.
Potential aggregators and processors for OPG include:
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA):
represents 38,000 farmers and is an advocate
for the interests of Ontario farmers and represents
more than 90% of Ontario farmers. The OFA is
influential with local, provincial and federal
governments regarding agriculture and rural
affairs. The OFA has expressed interest in acting
as a facilitator to develop and coordinate the
aggregators and processors of agricultural residuals.
A business model has been developed which
includes a 20 year contract for biomass fuel
acquisition. The proposed contract from the OFA
includes a variable price for biomass that is
linked to the price of crude oil. It is likely that the
OFA can manage the financing required to
construct the facilities and develop the supply chain
(OFA, 2010).
Existing co-operatives are designed to handle
agricultural products. Co-operatives have an
organizational structure that is favourable to
secure financing. In order for co-operatives to
be a successful aggregator and processor in
the agricultural residual supply chain, they
must develop and construct new facilities
to handle residual materials and assemble
a committed group of producers (farmers
or third party) to harvest and supply residuals.
New Generation Co-operatives are under
development in the United States and focus
on the value added processing of biomass for
biobased applications rather than processing
commodities. These new generation co-oper-
atives do not exist in Ontario and financing
and memberships must be established.
Independent operators include small-scale pellet
mills such as Gildale Farms, Nott Farms and
Evergreen Farms which are in operation. Table
4.1 identifies existing pellet mills and their
corresponding biomass speciality, scale and
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
location. The current total annual pelletization
capacity in Ontario is currently less than 150,000
tonnes. Few plants pelletize all biomass
(agricultural residuals, energy crops and wood
biomass) and the majority process wood and
forestry biomass. The production scale ranges
from small-scale to thousands of tonnes per year.
A number of pelletization plants are emerging in
Ontario. The provincial government and funding
agencies have awarded grants to various groups to
develop and construct pellet mills to meet the
expected future demand of bio-energy applications.
Many of these pl ants are l ocated i n northern
and eastern Ontario. Pellet equipment designers
and manufacturers are also located in Ontario.
4.5 Biomass Supply Chain Options
4.5.1 Contract Options
There are four contract options to acquire agricultural
residuals to process into a biomass fuel. These
contract options include:
Spot Market Contract: the buyer purchases biomass
based on the current energy price equivalent.
Standard Market Contract: the buyer pays for
biomass partially based on a guaranteed price
for an expected quantity and a spot price for
excess biomass above the guaranteed quantity.
Acreage Contract: the buyer purchases biomass
at a guaranteed price for biomass produced on
a specific biomass acreage.
Gross Revenue Contract: the buyer guarantees
an annual gross revenue per hectare payment.
Aggregator/
Processor
Agricultural
Residuals
Energy Crops Wood Biomass Scale Location
Gildale Farms
Evergreen Farms
Nott Farms
Atikokan Renewable
Fuels
Afortek Inc.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Small
Small
Small
125,000
tonne/year
Small
St. Marys
Glenburnie
Clinton
Atikokan
Thunder Bay
Table 4.1 Operational Pellet Mills
Aggregator/
Processor
Agricultural
Residuals
Energy Crops Wood Biomass Scale Location
Canadian Biofuel
SPB Energy
Canadian Bio Pellet
Woodville Pellet Corp.
X
X
X

X
X
X
120,000
tonne/year
600,000
tonne/year
80,000
tonne/year
Springford
Peterborough
Ingleside
Kawartha Lakes
Table 4.2 Pellet Mills Under Construction or Expansion
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.5.2 Supplier Models
Producers of bio-based energy and products have
developed biomass supply chains that best suit their
needs in order to acquire feedstock for their
processes. Examples of these supply chains follow.
(i) Drax Power Station
Drax has developed the Green Shoots program to
source energy crops such as miscanthus, short rotation
coppice willow and straw. A pellet plant has also been
built and commissioned to process local straw into
pellets usable in the generating process (Drax, 2010a).
As part of the Green Shoots program, Drax contracts
for biomass through BiCAL from farmers and
landowners. Suppliers collect biomass from farmers
for delivery to the Drax Power Station. Through BiCAL,
Drax supports the identification and development of
new organizations to assist farmers with issues related
to agronomy, biomass planting and the development
of sustainable farming practices.
(ii) Elean Power Station
The straw fuel for the Elean Power Station (38 MW
generation capacity) is procured from Anglian Straw,
a wholly owned subsidiary. Anglian Straw sources
approximately 70% of the biomass supply directly from
farmers who harvest and deliver straw directly to the
plant. The remaining 30% is harvested and delivered
to the plant by Anglian Straw (EPR, 2010). Straw is
delivered to the plant from within a 50 mile radius by
truck every half hour and moisture content is tested to
ensure it is below 25%. Two fully enclosed straw barns
are capable of storing 2,100 tonnes of straw, which is
the equivalent of 4 days of fuel (Newman, 2003).
(iii) Iogen Corporation
Iogen has developed a cereal straw supply chain for
their cellulosic ethanol pilot facility in the Ottawa
region. The price paid for straw is either fixed, or
variable which is linked to the price of crude oil.
Linking the price of biomass to the price of oil allows
farmers to manage the cost of fuel used to produce
and harvest the crop and residuals. Iogen has also
implemented sustainability measures. Farmers have
the option of selling all their harvested straw every
second year, or half of their harvested straw every
year. Contracts with farmers are for straw laid in the
field (cereal crop harvested) while contracts with
custom operators are to complete the straw harvest
and for delivery to the plant (Altman et al., 2007).
(iv) Suncor Energy
Suncor Energy in the Sarnia region produces ethanol
from corn. Their supply chain is based on direct
contracts with farmers. Farmers bid through an
internet portal on the selling price of their corn to
Suncor. This accommodates farmers for their desired
selling price for their corn and payment is according
to their preferred method.
Once the supply chain logistics and residuals markets
have been established, the spot market price, as used
by Suncor Energy, is an efficient and attractive option
for OPG and feedstock suppliers.
4. 5. 3 Aggregator and Processor Model s
New Generati on Co-Operati ves
New generation co-operatives have been developed
in the United States for various biomass materials
and applications. These models are shown as
examples below.
(i) Show Me Energy Co-operative
Co-operative members within 100 miles of the pellet
mill deliver baled biomass to the facility. Bales of
biomass are stored on the farm until delivered to
Show Me Energy. The farmers are reimbursed for the
transportation of their biomass within a 100 mile limit.
Transportation distances exceeding this 100 mile
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
boundary will only receive reimbursement for 100
miles. Show Me Energy will only accept biomass if
sustainability practices are implemented. For agricul-
tural crop residuals such as corn stover, 30% of the
residuals must remain on the field. For prairie grasses,
a killing frost must occur before harvesting, and
grasses must not be harvested around water courses
to minimize soil erosion (Ebert, 2008).
The majority of the pellets produced are sold locally
within Missouri, however, some pellets have been
shipped to other states and to Europe (Tietz, 2010). The
pellets for homeowners are bagged in 40 lb (18 kg)
plastic bags. Industrial pellet products are shipped in
bulk or large totes. Customers include homeowners
and small businesses using pellet stoves, furnaces or
boilers independently or with their current heating
system. Members can buy pellets at cost for home
heating, whereas non-members purchasing pellets
save 40% of the cost of wood pellets.
(ii) The Tennessee Biomass Supply Co-operative
This co-operative was created to develop a program to
establish switchgrass for energy applications and
co-firing in power plants. Farmers harvest switchgrass
using their existing equipment and move the bales to
the edge of a field. Bales are loaded onto trucks for
centralized storage off-site. Co-operative membership
is limited and based on the demand for switchgrass,
however, switchgrass is not harvested if it is not
needed. All contracts are acreage based and farmers
are paid for the switchgrass produced on contracted
land (Grooms, 2010).
(iii) The Minnesota Valley Alfalfa
Producers Co-operative
A number of co-operatives organized to develop an
alfalfa processing and separation plant, and to invest
in technologies to utilize alfalfa biomass. Alfalfa leaves
are stripped from the stems and then pelletized.
Pellets produced from alfalfa leaves are shipped
across the United States for animal feed and the
stems are currently considered as a feedstock for
ethanol production (Saidak, 2010). A $100 member-
ship fee was required to join the co-operative in order
to fund activities prior to the share offerings. Shares
were offered at $40 and after 30 days, 18,000 shares
were sold (Downing et al., 2005).
(iv) The Willow Bioenergy Producers Co-operative
This co-operative, located in New York state, was
formed by researchers, power utilities, landowners
and environmental groups to develop planting and
harvesting equipment for willow production and to sell
the willow biomass to a power utility. The co-operative
ensures adequate production of willow to meet the
supply contract as well as for timely fuel delivery and
quality control. Revenue is generated through the sale
of biomass to the power utility, and membership
fees support planting, harvesting, processing and
transportation activities. The power generation utilities
receive the emissions credits from the co-firing
activities (Downing et al., 2005).
4.5.4 Processing Techology for Torrifed Biomass
Torrefaction was been recently commercialized in
Europe. Torrefied biomass has been commercially
produced and used for power generation in a large
scale power plant. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the Topell
torrefaction plant during early construction and near
of the end of construction. This plant is located in
Duiven, The Netherlands. Construction of this plant
was accelerated to approximately 12 months due to
the demand for torrefied biomass.
Stramproy Green I nvestments has del i vered
commer cial scale shipments of torrefied biomass
to the Essent power station in Geertruidenberg.
Figure 4.5 shows the first delivery of torrefied biomass
to the power plant and Figure 4.6 shows the shipment
of torrefied material.
Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary
processes that produce a higher quality fuel with
greater energy density and improved handling.
Successful European development suggests that
torrefacti on technol ogy wi l l be depl oyed in
North America relatively quickly if there is a strong
demand for torrefied biomass. The use of torrefac-
tion has the potential to change the supply chain it
allows for greater distances between biomass
production sites and the power generating station as
it will lower transportation costs.
4.6 Assessment of Supply Chain Stakeholders
There are strengths and weaknesses of each organization
involved in the supply chain. The ideal combination of
stakeholders must be determined in order to develop
an efficient supply chain that is capable of supply-
ing high quality fuel to the generating station. The
strengths and weaknesses of the feedstock suppliers are
identified in Table 4.3. The strength and weaknesses of
aggregators and processors are provided in Table 4.4.
There are advantages and disadvantages of having
individual farmers or third party harvesters obtain the
required biomass supply. The benefit of farmers
harvesting their own residuals is that care for the land
will be taken to ensure sustainable future crop
production, since their livelihood depends on the land.
Weaknesses of relying on farmers to harvest residuals
include the high cost of purchasing specialized
equipment and the brief time window to harvest the
crop and the residuals. A drawback for OPG includes
Figure 4.3 Construction of the Topell Torrefaction
Plant, Duiven, The Netherlands
Figure 4.4 Topell Torrefaction Plant Near Completion,
Duiven, The Netherlands
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
a large number of contracts with individual farmers for
the residuals.
Benefits of third party harvesting include a reduction
in the number of contracts for OPG to manage as the
third party can contract with individual farmers. Third
party harvesters will own the necessary specialized
harvesting equipment and have staff to harvest
residuals. They will assume the responsibility of
ensuring that a uniform biomass product is provided
to the aggregators or the generating station since
the harvesting procedure is consistent. A potential
disadvantage to the farmer is that the third party may
not have the same care for the land as the farmer and
may not be as conscientious.
There are several options for aggregating and
processing residuals in Ontario. The OFA has an
existing large membership and the ability to influence
governments regarding decisions and policies. The
OFA will be able to build new facilities specially
designed to harvest residuals. Ideally positioned to be
a facilitator, the OFA has a business model for fuel
aggregators and processors ready for implementation.
The OFA prefers to be the sole supplier to OPG.
Processing facilities must be constructed and
di stribution channels between the farm and the
generating station need to be developed. If existing
co-operatives will be involved in the supply chain
through OFA facilitation, agreements must be
made between the OFA and co-operatives.
Figure 4.6. Torrefied Material from the Topell
Torrefaction Plant
Figure 4.5 First Fuel Delivery by Stramproy Green
Investments to the Essent Power Station
Existing co-operatives have large memberships and
there are many agricultural co-operatives located
across the province. Co-operatives have established
practices and transportation routes which are
transferrable to the processing, handling and transport
of agricultural residuals. Co-operatives have the ability
to raise funds quickly through membership fees
and shares. Farmer members are innovative and
knowledgeable and can react quickly to solve
problems and embrace opportunities.
Co-operatives are successful due to the support of
the community, and restricted membership of the
co-operative provides the organization with stability.
Co-operatives are not currently capable of storing
and processing residuals, so existing facilities must
be enhanced to include storage areas and processing
equipment. Existing co-operative locations may not
be ideal sites for central i zed processing of agri-
cultural residuals.
New generation co-operatives are advantageous since
they are specific to value-added biomass applications.
Since these co-operatives do not yet exist in Ontario,
they can be built in ideal locations and specifically
designed to handle the residual materials in the region.
New generation co-operatives are yet to be developed
in Ontario, therefore, time and financing are required
for construction as well as for the development of
distribution channels and memberships.
Independent operators include small scale pellet mills
such as Gildale Farms. These operators have existing
customers for their products and suppliers of their
biomass materials. Independent operators have also
developed the expertise required to process residual
materials into pellets. High quality is assured since
their livelihood depends on the final product. These
operators are small scale and do not want to assume
the high risk related to rapid scale up of production or
a market that does not develop.
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Strengths
Individual
Farmer
Third Party
Harvesters
Weaknesses
Expensive to invest in new and
specialized equipment
Brief time window for harvesting
residuals
Many contracts
Care for their land and
sustainability
Lack of concern regarding
sustainability
Reduced number of contracts
Own specialized equipment
Staff to harvest
Consistent product (processed
properties) to aggregator
Table 4.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Agricultural Residual Feedstock Suppliers
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Table 4.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Agricultural Residuals Aggregators and Processors
Strengths
OFA
Existing Agricultural
Co-operatives
New Generation
Co-operatives
Independent
Operators
Weaknesses
Prefers to be the sole supplier
Must be constructed
Must develop distribution
channels
Must develop agreements with
existing co-operatives
Large membership
Influence governments
Specially designed for residuals
processing
Ideally positioned to be a
facilitator
Business model developed for
pelletization plant
Currently unable to process and
store residuals
Must be enhanced
Existing locations may not be
suitable
Large membership
Established practices for shipping
and handling
Established transportation routes
Transferable skills
Quickly raise funds through
membership
React quickly to opportunities and
problems
Wealth and strength in community
involvement
Restricted membership provides
stability
Specific to bio-applications
Situated in ideal locations
Specially designed for residuals
processing
Must be constructed
Must develop distribution
channels
Must develop membership
Existing customer base
(greenhouses, residential)
Expertise in handling residual
materials
Small scale
Do not want high risk
Few existing players
4.7 Recommended Features of a Supply Chain
Based on the options available to OPG for the
development of the agricultural residuals industry
in Ontario, recommended features of the supply
chain are described below:
Farm co-operatives enter the bio-energy industry
and expand their existing capabilities to develop
and build new generation co-operatives. Activities
undertaken at these co-operatives include drying,
pelletization, torrefaction and storage of the
biomass and processed fuel. This recommendation
results in a strong co-operative organization due
to community involvement and open competition
for the acquisition of residuals by OPG.
The involvement of third party harvesters to
collect agricultural residuals assists farmers in
harvesting residuals within a brief time frame
and allows farmers to focus on the harvest of
their primary crop. Third party harvesters
also stabilize the biomass supply since there
is an organization responsible for the harvest
and col l ecti on.
For initial biomass acquisition contracts during
the early stages of the new industry, the price
paid for residuals should be linked to the price of
crude oil. This minimizes the cost risk associated
with the harvest of residuals due to possible
f uel and f ert i l i zer cost i ncreases.
Mari ne shi ppi ng i s the recommended
transportation mode for large volumes of
agricultural residuals cost effectively to the
power generating stations as well as to reduce
road traffic in the region surrounding
the generating stations.
Soil monitoring mechanisms should be included
in the supply chain to ensure that farmers
monitor their soil quality and that the SOM
does not fal l bel ow an acceptabl e l evel .
Construction of fuel aggregators and processors
across the province should be in strategic
locations to optimize the aggregation of the
regional residuals supply and minimize the
transportation distances of bulky biomass.
The capacity of each new pellet mill would be
approxi matel y 150, 000 tonne/ year.
S
u
p
p
l
y

C
h
a
i
n

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

&

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
Presently, there is a market for a portion of the
agricultural residuals produced in Ontario, specifically
cereal straw. Thi s straw i s used i n di fferent
appl i cations such as animal bedding and feed,
growth media for vegetables and as a feedstock
for bio-fuels. The current market pri ce of these
agri cul t ural resi duals, therefore, provides a
basis for estimating the harvesting and collection
costs as well as the expected margin for farmers from
the sale of the residuals. Other costs associated with
delivering biomass fuels to the OPG gate include
transportation, storage and processing, and fuel
quality improvement costs.
Generalized estimates of these costs and the
underlyingassumptions are presented in this section.
An economic assessment of a promising biomass
fuel quality improvement option is also included.
5.1 Cost of Harvesting Residuals
Ontario farmers have experience harvesting winter
wheat straw, since there is market for the straw and a
long harvesting time window. Winter wheat, which is
the fourth largest field crop in the province, is usually
harvested in July which gives ample harvesting time
without rushed preparation for the next crop and the
risk of an early snowfall. Wheat grains and wheat straw
can be harvested with a single pass of the combine.
Wheat straw is usually left in the field in windrows or
swaths and bailed at a later time. A bailer may be
attached to specialized combines so that harvesting
and bailing can be executed in a single pass.
Soybeans, the second largest field crop in Ontario,
produce a relatively small amount of plant residuals.
Some years, farmers may harvest soybean stover for
use as livestock bedding, if there is a shortage of wheat
straw in a particular region of the province. Removal
of the chopper from the combine discharges whole
soybean stover back to the field. The soybean stover
can then be raked and bailed. Soybeans are usually
harvested in late September and early October, which
generally provides a long harvesting time window
before the first snowfall. If the soybean crop is
followed by winter wheat in the crop rotation, the
harvesting time window is slightly shorter.
Corn stover provides the largest amount of agricultural
residuals in Ontario, even though grain corn is the
third largest field crop in the province. Like soybean
stover, a small percentage of Ontarios corn
stover is occasionally harvested for livestock bedding
if there is a shortage of wheat straw in a particular
region. Harvesting corn stover requires additional
passes, since the combine only removes corn ears and
the stalks remain un-cut in the field. Depending on the
specific harvesting equipment the farmer owns, extra
passes for mowing, raking and bailing will be required.
The harvesting time window for corn stover is the
most challenging, since the grain corn is harvested in
late October and early November when the moisture
level content of the grain declines to an acceptable
level. A combination of a wet fall and an early snow
can reduce the harvesting time window to a couple of
weeks. Third party harvesting could be an attractive
option for corn stover collection to ensure residuals
supply stability. Corn cobs must be harvested using
speci al i zed machinery and will slow down the
grain harvest.
Based on the activities and time limitations associated
with each type of residual discussed above, harvesting,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Chapter5
Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Residuals as a Biomass Fuel
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
bailing, on-farm storage and handling costs of selected
agricultural residuals are estimated and given in Table
5.1. These costs dont include the monetary value
of nutrients (namely Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Potassium, or NPK) contained in the residuals. The
total cost at the farm gate of the particular residual
in Table 5.1 is not necessarily the expected price.
The supply and demand of a particular residual in
each region will set the price. For instance, wheat
straw in some Ontario regions could be as high as
$150/tonne in some years, depending on the wheat yield
and the straw demand. The total cost per tonne of corn
cobs and soybean stover are relatively high due to
lower residual yields per hectare.
5.2 Transportation Models and Costs
The transportation cost of biomass is a function of
the distance, the biomass density and the mode of
transportation. Transportation costs usually represent
a substantial portion of the total cost of the biomass
fuel, and can be the limiting factor for financial
feasibility of the biomass energy project. For all
transportation modes, i.e. truck, rail and marine, the
biomass transportation has a fixed cost component
and a variable cost component. The fixed cost
includes loading and unloading, capital cost of rail
cars, the marine port, etc. The variable cost compo-
nent can be expressed i n $/ km, and i ncl udes
fuel and operati ng costs. Figure 5.1 i l l ustrates
the fixed cost and the variable cost of biomass
transportation in general.
Biomass density has an important role in the
transportation cost estimate. For instance, a standard
wheat straw bale has a bulk density of about 120
Table 5.1 Cost of Harvesting, Bailing, On-farm Storage & Handling for Selected Residuals
Wheat Straw Corn Stover Corn Cob Soybean Stover
Practically harvestable residuals
(tonne/ha)
Cost of harvesting ($/ha)
Cost of bailing ($/ha)
On-farm storage & handling
cost ($/ha)
Expected margin ($/ha)
Total cost at farm gate without
NPK values of the residuals
($/tonne)
3.5
37
50
15
50
44
3.5
75
60
15
50
58
1
50
0
12
25
87
1.3
25
37
15
50
98
Variable Cost
($/t/km)
Distance (km)
Fixed cost ($/t)
U
n
i
t

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
$
/
t
)
Slope =
Figure 5.1 Fixed Cost and Variable Cost
of Biomass Transportation
kg/m
3
, and a truck with a volume of 100 m
3
can
transport bales with a total weight of approximately
12 tonnes. However, biomass pellets with a bulk
density of 580 kg/m
3
or torrefied pellets with a
bulk density of 800 kg/m
3
will weigh out the truck
capacity maximum of 40 tonnes before the container
is full. Obviously, it is more costly to transport
bulky biomass than densified biomass. The constants
used in the transportation cost models in this
study are shown in Table 5.2 and were adapted from
a number of studies (Flynn, 2007; Samson, 2008;
Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; Sorensen, 2005).
Transportation cost of biomass per dry matter tonne
(DM t) for a given mode is calculated through:
Transportation cost ($/DM t) = C
1
+ C
2
x L
where:
C
1
= Fixed cost constant ($/DM t)
C
2
= Variable cost constant ($/DM t/km)
L = Distance (km)
The total cost to transport bi omass pel l ets i s
shown in Figure 5.2 for the different modes at
vari ous di stances between the farm and the
OPG Generati ng Stati on (GS). I f the raw bi o-
mass is transported from the farm to the cen-
tral storage and processi ng faci l i ty by truck,
and the bi omass pel l ets are trucked from the
central faci l i ty to the OPG GS (i . e. T+T), the
total transportation cost would be lowest if the
di st ance bet ween t he f arm and OPG GS i s
l es s t han 350 km. However, t hi s " T+T"
t r ansportati on woul d cost si gni fi cantl y more
than the other modes, as shown in Figure 5.2,
for l onger di stances between the farm and
OPG. The "T+T+R" transportati on i ncl udes
trucki ng of raw bi omass from the farm to the
central faci l i ty, trucki ng of bi omass pel l ets
from the central facility to the rail terminal and
rail transportation of biomass pellets from the
rail terminal to the OPG GS. The "T+T+M" mode
i s si mi l ar to the "T+T+R" except wi th mari ne
shipping rather than rail transportation.
Fi gure 5. 3 presents a breakdown of the total
transportation cost for all combinations of t he
t r ansport at i on modes consi der ed. Assump-
ti ons i ncl ude a farm to OPG di stance of 500
km, a farm to the central faci l i ty di stance of
100 km, and a central facility to rail terminal or
marine port distance of 100 km. The densities of
raw biomass and pellets are estimated at 120
kg/ m
3
and 580 kg/ m
3
, r espect i vel y. Fi gur e
5. 3 shows that, for i nstance wi th "T+T+M"
transportati on mode, the cost of transporti ng
bul k y bi omass f rom t he f arm t o t he cent ral
facility (i.e. the first T, T1) is about $20/DM t,
whereas, transporting biomass pellets by truck
(i . e. the second T, T2) costs about $6/ DM t.
Note that di stance of T1 and T2 are the same,
at 100 km. This is due the substantial change in
the biomass density, and suggests that central
st orage and processi ng f aci l i t i es shoul d be
l ocated as cl ose as possi bl e to the farms to
mi ni mi ze the total bi omass transportati on
cost. A reducti on of approxi matel y 40% i n
transportati on costs, i n terms of $/ DM t,
through rai l and mari ne shi ppi ng modes for
torrefied pellets can be expected due to the higher
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Mode
C
1
C
2
Truck
Rail
Marine
5.7
17.1
19.6
0.1369
0.0277
0.0113
Table 5.2 Transportation Model Constants
for Different Modes for a Bulk Biomass
Density of 120 kg/m
3
( Adapt ed f rom Fl ynn, 2007; Samson, 2008;
Sokhansanj and Fenton, 2006; Sorensen, 2005)
bul k densi ty compared to untorrefi ed pel l ets.
Si mi l arl y, the transportati on cost of torrefi ed
pellets through rail and marine shipping modes,
on a $/ GJ basi s, can be reduced by hal f i n
compari son with untorrefied pel l ets due to the
higher energy density.
5.3 Storage and Processing Costs
As a mi mi num r equi r ement , agr i cul t ur al
resi dual s harvest ed f or energy a ppl i c a tions
must be at l east dri ed, and may be fol lowed
i mmediately by densification. This allows for
year r ound st or age t o mi ni mi ze dr y mat t er
l os s and moul d- r el at ed heal t h r i sks. A
number of s t udi es have r epor t ed a wi de
r ange of st or age cost s f or bi omass. Durff y
and Nanhou ( 2 0 0 2 ) r epor t ed a $2. 92/ t / yr
st or age cost for switchgrass, whereas Samson
( 2008) est i mat ed a c o s t o f $ 5 / DM t f o r
s t o r i ng 3, 60 0 t of s wi t chg r a s s a t No t t
Fa r ms i n Cl i nt on, On t a r i o . A p e l l e t mi l l
wi t h a g r e a t e r c a p a c i t y, 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 t / y r
wa s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s s t u d y, wo u l d
pr ov i de e c o n omy of s c a l e i n c ompa r i s on
wi t h t he s t o r a ge c os t s a t Not t Fa r ms .
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0
Distance (Farm to Generating Station) in km
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
$
/
D
M

t
)
T - Truck R - Rail M - Marine
T+T
T+T+R
T+T+M
Figure 5.2 Costs to Transport Biomass from the Farm to the Generating Station
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Drying of biomass can represent a major cost
associated with the biomass densification process.
Mani (2006) estimated that the cost associated with
drying wood residues at 45% moisture is about 30%,
or $10.30/t, of the total pelletizing cost. Energy used for
drying wood residues also represents 22% of wood
pellets energy, and 70% of the total energy consumed
in the pelletizing process (Karwandy, 2007). Agricul-
tural residuals with relatively lower moisture contents,
such as wheat straw, offer lower drying costs. A nearly
linear relationship exists between the cost of drying
biomass and the moisture content of the biomass. In
this study, it is assumed that the incoming biomass
is dried to 8% moisture content for subsequent
densification processes or storage.
Grinding, also known as milling, is a sub-process
within the biomass densification process. Biomass
materials should be milled after drying to a size no
larger than the diameter of the pellets. Raw materials
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T+T T+T+R T+T+M
Modes of Transportation
$
/
D
M

t
Truck (farm to central facility) 120 kg/m
3
Truck (central facility to terminal/port or OPG) 580 kg/m
3
Rail (terminal to OPG) 580 kg/m
3
Marine (port to OPG) 580 kg/m
3
T
T
R
T
T T
T
M
Figure 5.3 Sample Breakdown of Biomass Transportation Costs
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
are usually sieved before grinding to remove foreign
obj ects such as stone and metal . Mani (2006)
estimated a grinding cost of $0.95/t for wood residues.
Biomass from energy crops may have higher grinding
costs due to additional sieving before grinding, since
agricultural biomass is more prone to foreign materials
such as soil and stones, compared to forest wood.
Pelletizing machines, also known as extruders, are
available in a range of sizes. Generally, every 100 hp
provides a capacity of approximately one ton of wood
pellets per hour. However, higher pellet outputs of
2 4 t/hr can be expected for agricultural residual
biomass. Many pelletizing machines have a built-in
steam conditioning chamber. Superheated steam, at
temperatures above 100 C, is used to soften biomass
before it is densified. Steam conditioning is not
necessary but results in raw material that is less
abrasive to the pelletizing equipment. This helps
reduce maintenance costs. There are two types of
dies used in the pelletization process:
Flat die: raw material is pressed though the top
of a horizontally mounted die
Rotary die: two or more rotary presses push raw
material from inside a ring die to the outside
where it can be cut into the desired length.
In both cases, a pellet is formed using a high pressure
to force the raw material through the holes in the die.
Pressure and friction increase along with the
temperature of biomass. This allows the lignin of the
biomass to soften and the fibre to reshape into the
pellet form. Pelletizing cost of agricultural biomass
may be higher than that of forest wood due to the
higher silica contents, which leads to greater wear of
the pelletizing equipment.
Samson (2008) estimated the total pelletizing cost,
including drying and grinding, of switchgrass at $40/t
for a 50,000 t/yr (6.7 t/hr) pellet plant. Since a pellet
plant with a capacity of 150,000 t/yr (20 t/hr) is
considered in this study, a lower pelletizing cost due
to the economy of scale is expected. The economy of
scale of a wood pellet mill is shown in Figure 5.4 (Mani,
2006). It can be seen that there is no significant gain in
the economy of scale beyond a mill capacity of 75,000
t/yr (10 t/hr). The process of producing a biomass
briquette is similar to pelletization, however, briquette
machines require less capital and have lower operating
costs. The cost of producing biomass briquettes could
be about 50% of the cost to produce pellets (Samson,
2008).
Torrefaction is a fuel improvement process that is
gaining interest from centralized power producers,
especially coal-fired power plants considering co-firing
or conversion to 100% biomass. This thermal pre-treat-
ment process produces solid bio-fuels that are
hydrophobic, and allows for outdoor storage similar
to coal. The energy content per unit mass of torrefied
biomass pellets is approximately 30% higher than that
of regular biomass pellets, and energy content per
unit volume of torrefied biomass pellets is about 90%
higher than that of regular pellets (Kiel, 2007). The
transportation cost of torrefied pellets could, therefore,
be significantly reduced. Torrefied biomass also has
superior handling, milling and co-firing capabilities.
In Europe, torrefaction has recently been commercial-
ized and a torrefaction facility is producing torrefied
biomass for use in power generation.
Determining the cost of the torrefaction processes is
difficult, since commercial units have only recently
been established. Therefore, the costs are estimated
based on the types of processi ng equi pment,
estimates of energy consumption, and the handling
and preparation steps involved. The pricing of
pilot torrefaction units from potential equipment
manufacturers were also obtained during this study.
Table 5.3 provides cost estimates for the torrefaction
process, excl udi ng pel l et i zat i on. The cost of
torrefying agricultural biomass is approximately
$12/tonne. This assumes that the heat from the
combustion of volatiles is recovered in the
process. The torrefaction unit is considered to
be annexed to the pellet mill. Either torrefacti on
or pe l l e t i z a t i on ma y oc c ur f i r s t i n t he
t or refied pellet production process. Each option
has associated advantages and disadvantages.
The total cost of torrefied biomass pellets depends on
the sequence of operations in the production process.
I f the bi omass i s torrefi ed fi r st fol l owed by
pel l eti zation, the total processing cost may be lower
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
90
75
60
45
30
15
0
0 4 8 12 16
Total cost
Capital cost
Operating cost
Plant Capacity (t/h)
P
e
l
l
e
t

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t

(
U
S
$
/
t
)
Figure 5.4 Wood Pelletizing Cost Versus Plant Size (Mani, 2006)
Item Value Unit
Process capacity
Capital cost
Interest rate
Life of the system
Amortized capital cost
Operating cost
Total cost/tonne*
150,000
13
10
20
1.53
0.24
11.78
tonne/yr
M$
%
yr
M$/yr
M$/yr
$/tonne
Table 5.3 Cost Estimates for Torrefaction
of Agricultural Biomass
*Note that this total cost excludes any costs related
to pelletization
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
due to lower milling and pelletizing energy require-
ments (Arvelakis, 2009 and Kiel, 2007). The natural
binding agents contained in raw biomass will likely
define the processing sequence for the production of
torrefied pellets. Woody biomass usually has a higher
natural binding content in comparison with agricul-
tural residuals. Torrefaction of woody biomass prior
to pelletization has been proven at the pilot scale. An
option is to include the lignin byproduct from pulp and
paper operations as a binder in the pelletization of
agricultural residuals. More research is needed into
the torrefaction and pelletization of agricultural
biomass to determine if the same process sequence
can be applied. The total cost of torrefied biomass is,
therefore, estimated for two processing sequence
scenarios: torrefaction first and pelletization first.
Based on the discussion above and the studies
referenced, cost estimates for the storage and
processing of selected agricultural residuals are given
in Table 5.4. The total processing cost to produce
regular biomass pellets from agricultural residuals is
approximately $32/DM t. If agricultural residuals must
be pelletized before torrefaction, due to their low
content of natural binding chemicals, the total
processing cost of torrefied biomass pellets is
about $44/DM t. If the agricultural residuals can be
torrefied first, followed by pelletization, the total
processing cost may be reduced to $25/DM t.
5.4 Financial Model and Total Cost of Agricultural
Residuals Fuel at the OPG Gate
A financial model was developed to estimate the
cost of different forms of biomass fuels derived from
agricultural residuals. The total cost of biomass fuels
at the OPG gate was calculated based on general
input parameters such as practically harvestable
resi duals per hect are, t he moi st ure cont ent ,
expected margin from sale of residuals, processing
expenses and transportation costs. NPK in agricultural
residuals are also considered and the costs of biomass
fuels with and without NPK are estimated. Biomass
processing using mobile units is also included as an
Wheat Straw Corn Stover
Grind
Briquette
Pellet
Torrefied pellet (Pelletization first)
Torrefied pellet (Torrefaction first)*
Storage and processing costs ($/DM t)
Total processing cost ($/DM t)
Storing and administrative expenses
Drying to 8% moisture content
Grinding
Briquetting
Pelletizing
Torrefying
4.50
1.30
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
4.50
2.28
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
8.30
22.30
31.30
43.30
24.55
9.28
23.28
32.28
44.28
25.53
Table 5.4 Storage and Processing Costs of Selected Agricultural Residuals
*Lower grinding ($1.00/DM t) and pelletizing ($5.75/DM t) costs for this processing sequence
Financial Model - Wheat Straw
Average biomass yield (DM t/ha)
Fuel value (GJ/DM t)
Moisture content at farm gate (%)
Nitrogen content (% of total dry mass)
Phosphorus content (% of total dry mass)
Potassium content (% of total dry mass)
Average distance - farm to central facility (km)
Average distance - central facility - marine port (km)
Average distance - marine port to OPG (km)
Interest rate (%)
General Input Parameters
3.5
17.8
12
2.0
0.3
3.2
100
100
300
6
Value
Cost in Nitrogen ($/kg)
Cost of Phosphorus ($/kg)
Cost of Potassium ($/kg)
Capital cost of mobile pelletizer (M$)
Utilization of mobile pelletizer (t/yr)
Life of mobile pelletizer (yr)
Annualized cost of mobile pelletizer (M$)
Capital cost of mobile pelletizer on each tonne processed ($/t)
Fertilizer/Mobile Unit Cost Items
1.10
0.85
0.65
3.50
5000
15.00
0.36
72.07
Value
Harvesting ($/ha)
Bailing ($/ha)
On-farm storage and handling ($/ha)
Expected margin from residual sales ($/ha)
Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) without fertilizer values
Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) without fertilizer values
Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/DM t) with fertilizer values
Cost of biomass at farm gate ($/GJ) with fertilizer values
37.00
50.00
15.00
50.00
43.43
2.44
88.78
4.99
Total Cost of Biomass at Farm Gate Value
Farm to central facility
Grind - central facility to marine port
Briquette - central facility to marine port
Pellet - central facility to marine port
Torrefied - central facility to marine port
Grind - marine port to OPG
Briquette - marine port to OPG
Pellet - marine port to OPG
Torrified - marine port to OPG
19.37
12.91
6.64
5.81
4.70
15.33
7.88
6.90
5.58
Transportation Costs ($/DM t) Value
Storing and administration expenses ($/DM t)
Drying to 8% moisture content ($/DM t)
Grinding ($/DM t)
Briquetting ($/DM t)
Pelletizing ($/DM t)
Torrefication ($/DM t)
4.50
1.30
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
Processing Cost Items Value
Cost ($/GJ) of Different Forms of Biomass at OPG Gate
(Mobile Processing Unit Model)
Harvesting & Bailing
Processing
Transporting
Total without fertilizer values
Total with fertilizer values
2.44
4.69
1.59
8.72
11.26
Grind
2.44
7.05
0.82
10.30
12.85
Briquette
2.44
8.57
0.71
11.72
14.27
Pellet
2.71
11.77
0.47
14.94
17.49
Torrefied-1
2.71
10.60
0.47
13.77
16.32
Torrefied-2
(Central Processing Facility Model)
Processing
Transporting
2.44
0.47
2.67
5.58
8.13
Grind
2.44
1.25
1.90
5.60
8.14
Briquette
2.44
1.76
1.80
6.00
8.55
Pellet
2.71
2.70
1.35
6.76
9.31
Torrefied-1
2.71
1.53
1.35
5.59
8.14
Torrefied-2
Torrefied-1: Pelletizing first with subsequent torrefaction
Torrefied-2: Torrefaction first with subsequent pelletizing
Figure 5.5 Financial Model for Wheat Straw
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Note: Calculated value (green text)
Input Value (black text)
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Financial Model - Corn Stover
Interest rate (%)
3.5
18.5
15
1.0
0.2
1.6
100
100
300
6
Value
1.10
0.85
0.65
3.50
5000
15.00
0.36
72.07
Value
Harvesting ($/ha)
Bailing ($/ha)
75.00
60.00
15.00
50.00
57.14
3.09
80.24
4.34
19.37
12.91
6.64
5.81
4.89
15.33
7.88
6.90
5.80
Grinding ($/DM t)
4.50
2.28
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
Processing
Transporting
3.09
4.67
1.53
9.29
10.53
Grind
23.09
6.94
0.79
10.82
12.06
Briquette
3.09
8.40
0.69
12.18
13.43
Pellet
3.43
11.50
0.49
15.41
16.66
Torrefied-1
3.43
10.37
0.49
14.29
15.54
Torrefied-2
Processing
Transporting
3.09
0.50
2.57
6.16
7.41
Grind
3.09
1.26
1.83
6.18
7.43
Briquette
3.09
1.74
1.73
6.57
7.82
Pellet
3.43
2.66
1.37
7.46
8.71
Torrefied-1
3.43
1.53
1.37
6.33
7.58
Torrefied-2
Figure 5.6 Financial Model for Corn Stover
Financial Model - Corn Cobs
Interest rate (%)
1.0
17.9
15
0.5
0.1
1.0
100
100
300
6
Value
1.10
0.85
0.65
3.50
5000
15.00
0.36
72.07
Value
Harvesting ($/ha)
Bailing ($/ha)
50.00
0.00
12.00
25.00
87.00
4.86
99.85
5.58
19.37
12.91
6.64
5.81
4.73
15.33
7.88
6.90
5.61
Grinding ($/DM t)
4.50
2.28
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
Processing
Transporting
4.86
4.83
1.58
11.27
11.98
Grind
4.86
7.17
0.81
12.85
13.56
Briquette
4.86
8.68
0.71
14.25
14.97
Pellet
5.40
11.88
0.47
17.75
18.47
Torrefied-1
5.40
10.72
0.47
16.59
17.31
Torrefied-2
Processing
Transporting
4.86
0.52
2.66
8.04
8.76
Grind
4.86
1.30
1.89
8.05
8.77
Briquette
4.86
1.80
1.79
8.46
9.17
Pellet
5.40
2.75
1.35
9.50
10.22
Torrefied-1
5.40
1358
1.35
8.34
9.05
Torrefied-2
Figure 5.7 Financial Model for Corn Cobs
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Financial Model - Soybean Stover
Interest rate (%)
1.3
18.5
10
1.0
0.2
1.6
100
100
300
6
Value
1.10
0.85
0.65
3.50
5000
15.00
0.36
72.07
Value
Harvesting ($/ha)
Bailing ($/ha)
25.00
37.00
15.00
50.00
97.69
5.28
120.79
6.53
19.37
12.91
6.64
5.81
4.89
15.33
7.88
6.90
5.80
Grinding ($/DM t)
4.50
0.65
2.50
14.00
23.00
12.00
Processing
Transporting
5.28
4.41
1.53
11.21
12.46
Grind
5.28
6.68
0.79
12.74
13.99
Briquette
5.28
8.14
0.69
14.10
15.35
Pellet
5.87
11.20
0.49
17.56
18.80
Torrefied-1
5.87
10.08
0.49
16.43
17.68
Torrefied-2
Processing
Transporting
5.28
0.41
2.57
8.27
9.52
Grind
5.28
1.17
1.83
8.28
9.53
Briquette
5.28
1.66
1.73
8.68
9.92
Pellet
5.87
2.56
1.37
9.80
11.04
Torrefied-1
5.87
1.44
1.37
8.67
9.92
Torrefied-2
Figure 5.8 Financial Model for Soybean Stover
alternative to central fuel aggregators and processors.
The financial models for different agricultural residuals
are given in Figures 5.5 5.8.
Selected results, as a total cost of biomass fuel per GJ
at the OPG gate, of the financial models are highlighted
in Table 5.5. The total cost of cereal straw and corn
stover pellets at the OPG gate are $6.00/GJ and
$6.57/GJ, respectively. If the agricultural residuals are
torrefied before pelletization, this may offer not only a
higher quality fuel but also reduce the overall cost per
unit energy content. The total cost of biomass fuel,
torrefied then pelletized, may vary from $5.59/GJ to
$8.67/GJ without considering the value of nutrients in
the residuals. The economics may result in farmers
leaving the low yielding residuals in the field for SOM
replenishment. As shown in Figures 5.5 5.8, the
option of fuel processing through mobile units was
investigated in this study. The cost of biomass pellets
could be substantially higher, by an factor of two, with
mobile units due to a lower capital utilization factor
and higher cost of liquid fuel, compared to electricity,
(cost of diesel is approximately $25/GJ) to power the
mechanical processes involved in pellet production.
The production costs of raw agricultural residuals
at farm gate shown in Figures 5.5 5.8 are based
on harvesting and bailing costs and the expected
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Untorrefied
Pellet
Torrefied Pellet
(Pelletization
First)
Torrefied Pellet
(Torrefaction
First)
Soybean Stover
Cereal Straw
Corn Stover
Corn Cob
Harvesting & bailing
Processing
Transportation
Total (without NPK values)
Total (with NPK values)
Processing
Transportation
Processing
Transportation
Processing
Transportation
2.44
1.76
1.80
6.00
8.55
3.09
1.74
1.73
6.57
7.82
4.86
1.80
1.79
8.46
9.17
5.28
1.66
1.73
8.67
9.92
2.71
2.70
1.35
6.76
9.31
3.43
2.66
1.37
7.46
8.71
5.40
2.75
1.35
9.50
10.22
5.87
2.56
1.37
9.80
11.04
2.71
1.53
1.35
5.59
8.14
3.43
1.53
1.37
6.33
7.58
5.40
1.58
1.35
8.34
9.05
5.87
1.44
1.37
8.67
9.92
Table 5.5 Costs of Selected Agricultural Residual Fuels at the OPG Gate ($/GJ)
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
margin from the sale of the residuals. The actual
pr i c e of a par t i cul ar agr i cul t ur al r esi dual
depends on the supply and demand of the residual
at a speci fi c l ocati on i n a speci fi c year. These
suppl y/ demand anal yses were per formed for
cereal straw in different Ontario agri cul tural
census regions, since cereal straw is currently the
most widely used residual. Table 5.6 shows the
supply and demand of cereal straw and the average
prices in the different regions of Ontario. Wheat
straw is also included in the total cereal straw
production. Eastern Ontario has a cereal straw
deficit, and here, the price of straw is the highest in
the province. If the total cereal straw demand is to
be met by wheat straw, the central, western and
northern regions would experience wheat straw
deficits. This is reflected in the average wheat
straw price of $75-100 in those regions. There
i s approximately one million tonnes of surplus
cereal straw i n the provi nce. The maj ori t y of
t he surpl us i s produced in southern Ontario,
where the livestock industry represents a smaller
percentage of the total agricultural activities.
Therefore, the price of wheat straw in the southern
regi on i s t he l owest i n t he provi nce.
In this study, the estimated cost of wheat straw bales
at the farm gate, as given in Figure 5.5, is approxi-
mately $45/tonne. It is unlikely that wheat straw will be
available to purchase at this price in the Ontario, except
in the southern region where approximately 0.8 M
tonnes of surplus straw is available. The surplus cereal
straw is currently returned to the soil. The expected
correlation between the demand and the price of
cereal straw is illustrated in Figure 5.9. A demand
for cereal straw greater than 0.75 M tonnes may lead
to a rapid escalation of the price up to a demand of one
million tonnes. This would likely be due to acquiring
the straw mainly from the southern region with the re-
mainder from the other regions. If the demand from
OPG exceeds one million tonnes of straw, which is
greater than the total surplus in the province, market
competition for the straw from existing and emerg-
ing customers may lead to a very sharp increase in the
price as shown in Figure 5.9.
Corn stover, which currently has limited use in the
province, will likely be the main agricultural residual
Average
Wheat
Straw
Price
($/tonne)
Region
Wheat
Straw
Production
(tonne)
Total Cereal
Straw
Production
(tonne)
Number
of Cattle
Total Cereal
Straw
Demand
(tonne)
Wheat Straw
Production
Minus Total
Cereal Straw
Demand
(tonne)
Total
Cereal
Straw
Supply
Minus
Demand
(tonne)
Eastern
Central
Western
Southern
Northern
Total
15,946
130,696
543,511
847,338
6,648
1,544,139
132,833
276,477
970,889
1,051,056
83,890
2,515,145
356,412
249,563
918,833
348,937
108,906
1,982,651
267,309
199,650
735,066
244,256
81,680
1,527,961
100-125
75-100
75-100
40-50
75-100
-134,476
76,827
235,823
806,800
2,210
987,184
-251,363
-68,955
-191,555
603,082
-75,031
16,178
Table 5.6 Supply, Demand and Average Price of Cereal Straw in Ontario Regions
Note: Estimates are based on the field crop and livestock data from OMAFRA web site
used for power generation. Corn stover use would be
followed by surplus wheat straw to less than 0.75 M
tonnes, and then corn cobs. Soybean stover has the
least potential to become a fuel source due to its low
yield, higher cost, and requirement to be left in the field
to protect the soil from water erosion. The narrow har-
vesting time window of corn stover may be an issue
to achieve a steady supply of biomass fuel. However,
this could be resolved to some extent by third party
harvesting. With this suggested supply mix, the
average cost of biomass pellets from agricultural
residuals is in the range of $6.00/GJ to $7.00/GJ at the
OPG gate.
5.5 Cost of Biomass through Economies of Scale
All the cost estimates previously presented in this
economic section are based on the current level of
harvesting, pelletizing and transportation activities as
well as from related costs for biomass applications in
Ontario. Like any other commodity or industry, there
will be economies of scale associated with increases
in biomass production for all components of the
supply chain, i.e. harvesting and bailing, processing
and transportation. An attempt was made to estimate
the reduction in the total biomass cost due to the
economy of scale.
The harvesting and bailing components of the supply
chain offer the least gain in the economy of scale,
especially for wheat straw. About 1.5 million tonnes
of wheat straw are harvested in Ontario for various
applications. However, economies of scale for corn
stover and corn cob may be greater than wheat straw
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
0.75 1.00
75
45
OPG Straw Demand (M tonne/yr)
S
t
r
a
w

P
r
i
c
e

a
t

F
a
r
m

G
a
t
e

(
$
/
t
o
n
n
e
)
Figure 5.9 Expected Price of Cereal Straw at Different Demand Levels
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
due to thei r narrow harvesti ng ti me wi ndow
and the r e qui r ement of specialized equipment.
Depending on the agricultural residual, a reduction of
approximately 5% in the unit cost of harvesting
and bailing can be expected for an increase in agri-
cultural residuals quantity by approximately ten-fold.
The storage and processing component of the supply
chain may offer a greater sensitivity to economy
of scale in comparison with harvesting and bailing.
As presented in Figure 5.4, substantial gain is not
expected by increasing the size of a central storage
and processing facility beyond a 150,000 t/yr capacity.
In fact, further increases in processing capacity will
likely result in a higher overall cost of the biomass due
to increased transportation costs from farms to the
central facilities. Therefore, the gain in the economy of
scale through the storage and processing components
are likely due to improvements in processing
technologies, such as better management of the nutri-
ent content of the biomass, and a reduction in admin-
istration and management expenses. A reduction
of approximately 10% in the unit cost of storage and
processing can be expected when the total quantity
of biomass from agricultural residuals reaches 5
million DM t/yr.
Transportation is the supply chain component which can
offer the greatest economy of scale. This gain is mainly
due to volume discounts that transportation companies
can provide. The economic consulting firm Global In-
sight (www.globalinsight.com) has reported that the
gross margins of transportation companies could be as
high as 30%. Therefore, a modest reduction of about
15% of the unit transportation cost can be expected, if a
total of 5 million DM t/yr of biomass is shipped from
the farms to the central facility to the OPG GS.
In order to estimate the economies of scale for
agri cul tural resi dual s, the fol l owi ng typi cal
mat hemat ical model was used in this study:
Y = K (X)
F
where:
Y = Total cost of production ($)
K = Constant
X = Biomass production (Mt/yr)
F = Scale factor
The typical range of scale factor F is 0.65 0.99,
depending on the degree of the economy of scale and
the type of industry. Note that the lower the scale
factor, the greater the economy of scale. For a unit
scale factor (F=1), there is no economy of scale. Based
on the previous discussion above regarding different
supply chain components, the scale factors estimated
for each agricultural residual are given in Table 5.7. The
results of the economies of scale for selected agricul-
tural residuals, through the application of these
scale factors, are presented in Figure 5.10 for cereal
Residual Harvesting & Bailing Processing Transportation
Cereal Straw
Corn Stover
Corn Cob
Soybean Stover
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Table 5.7 Economy of Scale Factors (F) Estimated for Agricultural Residuals
straw, Figure 5.11 for corn stover, and in Figure
5.12 for corn cobs.
The cost sensitivity of biomass pellets due to
economies of scale can be estimated for a given
volume of biomass for each agricultural residual. Table
5.8 provides the total cost of the various forms of
biomass fuels from each agricultural residual at the
OPG gate in $/GJ for a total volume of 1.2 DM t/yr.
These cost estimates ar e f or t he est abl i shed
sol i d bi omass f uel i ndustry, and do not con-
sider the risk premiums associated with the
start-up of the industry. The actual prices OPG
may pay for agricultural residual pellets during
the initial stage of the industry will depend on
the level of de-risking acti vities for all partici-
pants involved.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Biomass Production (million DM t/yr)
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
/
G
J
)

a
t

O
P
G

G
a
t
e
X
Processing
Transporting
Total
Figure 5.10 Estimated Economy of Scale for Cereal Straw Pellets
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
X
X
X
X
X X
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
/
G
J
)

a
t

O
P
G

G
a
t
e
X
Processing
Transporting
Total
Figure 5.11 Estimated Economy of Scale for Corn Stover Pellets
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X
X
X
X
X X
C
o
s
t
s
(
$
/
G
J
)

a
t

O
P
G

G
a
t
e
X
Processing
Transporting
Total
Figure 5.12 Estimated Economy of Scale for Corn Cob Pellets
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
5.6 Estimation of Fuel Quality Improvement Costs
Agricultural residuals contain mainly NPK nutrients
which should ideally be returned to the soil. Combus-
tion of biomass containing high levels of NPK is also
detrimental to the boilers. Therefore, the removal and
recovery of NPK is desirable from the resource utiliza-
tion and combustion perspectives. There is presently
not a commercial system to recover NPK from agricul-
tural residuals. However, nutrient treatment technolo-
gies to remove phosphorus and other nutrients from
municipal bio-solids could be potentially applied to
agricultural residuals. The worlds first industrial-size
nutrient treatment facility was installed in 2007
at the City of Edmontons Gold Bar wastewater treat-
ment plant (http://www.phosphorus-recovery.tu-
darmstadt.de). This system removes phosphorus and
other nutrients from municipal waste for recycling
into an environmentally-safe, commercial fertilizer.
The technology was developed by Ostara Nutrient
Recovery Technologies Inc. of Vancouver, and can
extract more than 80% of the phosphorus and 10-15%
of the ammonium compounds.
Phosphorus removal is relatively easy compared to
nitrogen and potassium. Easier removal of phospho-
rus compounds is due to their insolubility in water.
Major components of the nutrient recovery system
are conceptualized in Figure 5.13. This system could
use water or other solvents to leach NPK from the
biomass and flocculant chemicals are required to
settle the NPK. Recovered NPK can be returned to
the soil as fertilizer. The cost estimates of this system,
recovery rates of NPK and other economics related to
the system are given in Table 5.9. If recovered NPK
can be sold as fertilizer, the NPK recovery would add
$0.24/GJ to the cost of the biomass pellets. If the NPK
cannot be sold, the NPK recovery would increase
the cost of biomass pellets by $1.14/GJ. The recovery
of nutrients from agricultural residuals is currently under
development at specific research facilities (personal
communication with Dr. Stelios Arvelakis, 2010).
Pellet
Torrefied Pellet
(Pelletization
First)
Torrefied Pellet
(Torrefaction
First)
Cereal Straw
Corn Stover
Corn Cob
Processing
Transportation
Processing
Transportation
Processing
Transportation
2.40
1.61
1.59
5.59
2.93
1.60
1.53
6.05
4.44
1.65
1.58
7.67
2.66
2.47
1.19
6.32
3.25
2.43
1.21
6.89
4.94
2.51
1.19
8.64
2.66
1.40
1.19
5.25
3.25
1.40
1.21
5.86
4.94
1.45
1.19
7.58
Table 5.8 Estimated Economy of Scale of Selected Agricultural Residuals at the OPG Gate ($/GJ)
Note: 1.2 million tonnes of each agricultural residual is assumed
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
Flocculant Chemicals
Biomass Washer
Dryer
Settler
Recycled Water
Solid Nutrients to Farms
Dry/Leached Biomass
Wet/Leached Biomass
Wash Water
Figure 5.13 Conceptual Overview of a Nutrient Recovery System for Agricultural Residuals
Unit Item
Process capacity
Average N content
Average P content
Average K content
Price of N
Price of P
Price of K
Recovery rate, N
Recovery rate, P
Recovery rate, K
Capital cost of system
Interest rate
Life of the system
Amortized capital cost
Heating cost
Other operating and maintenance
costs
Value of nutrients
Net profit
Cost of nutrient removal
(with NPK sale)
Cost of nutrient removal
(without NPK sale)
DM t/yr
%
%
%
$/kg
$/kg
$/kg
%
%
%
M$
%
yr
M$/yr
M$/yr
M$/yr
M$/yr
M$/yr
$/GJ
$/GJ
150,000
1.5
0.2
2.2
1.1
0.85
0.65
50
75
50
5
10
20
0.59
1.07
1.50
2.50
-0.66
0.24
1.14
Table 5.9 Economics of NPK Nutrient
Recovery from Agricultural Residuals
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
s

a

B
i
o
m
a
s
s

F
u
e
l
New industry development involves challenges with
varying levels of significance. The utilization of
agricultural residuals to generate electricity on the
large scale is no exception. The agricultural community
will need to adopt new farming practices, such as
conservation tillage and growing winter cover crops, to
ensure that soil erosion is minimized after the residuals
are harvested. Farm co-operatives and independent
investors will evaluate the risks and rewards of
participating in the bio-power generation supply
chain. Political issues will arise, which include health
and safety standards of the new industry and the
design of targeted subsidies. These potential issues
are discussed, along with recommended actions
for OPG.
6.1 Sustainable Removal of Agricultural Residuals
Agricultural residuals are regarded by most farmers as
a means to recycle plant nutrients to the soil, to
protect the soil from erosion, and to increase soil
organic matter. Soil degradation concerns will be
raised by soil conservationists and environmentalists
if residuals are removed for energy and other non-
traditional applications. The demand for agricultural
residuals may increase in the future by power utilities
as a replacement for coal and by emerging bio-based
products and other fuels. There is a strong need for
field research to understand fully the effects of
removing residuals from the soil. It is expected to
t ake up t o a decade t o det er mine the results
of these studies.
Removal of a portion of agricultural residuals is not
new to Ontario farmers, who harvest approximately 1.5
million tonnes of cereal straw of the 2.5 million tonnes
produced annually. The analysis in this study suggests
that approximately 20%, on average in Ontario,
of above ground residuals could be sustainably
harvested for non-traditional applications, including
power generat i on. The sal e of an est i mated
2. 8 mi l l i on tonnes of resi dual s i n 2009, wi l l
generate additional income for rural communities.
Communication with OFA personnel and farmers
duri ng this study revealed that the farmi ng
c ommuni t y i n Ontari o i s i nterested i n parti c-
i pating in the bio-power generation supply chain.
The adoption of conservation tillage is critical
for harvesting a percentage of the agricultural
resi dual s whi l e preservi ng soi l heal th. Other
best farm management practi ces, such as
growi ng cover crops and the addi ti on of l i ve-
stock manure to soil on a regular basis, should
be i ncl uded i n t he devel opment of bi o- energy
from residuals. Understanding the relationship
bet ween di ff erent crop rot at i ons and t he
quanti ty of resi dual s sust ai nabl y removed i s
al so i mportant for participating farmers.
The majority of Ontario farmers monitor their
soil health by conducting soil tests at the end
of t he rot at i on cycl e. Thi s pract i ce shoul d be
e ncour aged f or al l part i ci pat i ng f ar mer s
harvesting residuals. Information di ssemi nati on
i s requi red t o i nt egrat e t he harvesti ng of a
porti on of resi dual s i nto farm management
practices. OPG should work with organizations
l i ke the Ontari o Soi l and Crop I mprovement
Association (OSCIA) and the Ontario Federation
of Agriculture (OFA) to develop guidelines and
soi l moni t ori ng processes for sust ai nabl e
harvesting of agricultural residuals.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

&

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
n
a
s
Chapter6
Potential Issues in the Agricultural & Political Arenas
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

&

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
n
a
s
6.2 Uncertainties and Perceived Risks of
Supply Chain Stakeholders
The Ontario Government legislated that OPG cannot
continue to burn coal beyond 2014. However, the
Ontario Government did not necessarily call for the
conversion of OPG coal-fired power stations to
renewable fuels such as biomass. OPG has the option
of switching from coal to natural gas, and this has
been mentioned as an alternative by OPG executives
and the media. Figure 6.1 illustrates the price trend of
Alberta natural gas in recent years. The relatively low
price in 2009-2010 of natural gas in North America
has created a concern that the biomass fuel supply
chain for OPG may be an uncertain business venture.
C
d
n
$
/
M
c
f
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Year
Figure 6.1 Alberta Natural Gas Prices in Recent Years
Another business risk is related to the assumption that
the OPG biomass program was designed to assist
t he struggl i ng forestry sector i n Ontari o and
that the majority of the biomass will come from the
forestry sector rather than agriculture.
Canada, and in particular British Columbia, has
been exporting wood pellets to Europe for use in
large scale energy applications, co-firing with coal.
In 2008, Canada exported approximately 1.3 million
tonnes of wood pellets to Europe, which is over 90%
of the total pellets produced in that year. Exports
decreased to 0.85 million tonnes in 2009 (Flynn, 2010;
Flynn and Neilson, 2010) as European utilities cut back
the transportation subsidy from Canada. This situa-
tion does not seem to be improving. A headline i n
t he Cape Breton Post (March 31, 2010) read
New Brunswi ck wood pel l et maker cuts back,
lays off workers. Investors consi der t he bi o-
mass densification industry at over capacity.
I nvi t i ng new i nvest ment t o an i ndustry that
has over capaci ty wi l l be a chal l enge.
Investors, such as farm co-operatives, need a guaran -
teed market with long-term contracts and attractive
pricing to initiate the new residual supply industry.
The financial model developed in this study suggests
that the gross margin from the sale of agricultural
residuals is approximately $50/ha, and harvesting,
bailing and transportation costs are dependent on the
price of traditional liquid transportation fuels.
The unstable supply will be an issue, if crude oil prices
rapidly escalate as in 2008. To facilitate the start-up
of the agricultural residuals biomass industry, risk
sharing by linking the price of biomass to crude oil
in the initial contracts should be considered. An
i ncreasing number of power uti l i ti es i n Europe
and t he Uni t ed St at es ar e consi der i ng t he
co- fi ring of biomass and coal as a greenhouse
gas reduction measure. There may be potential
markets outside Ontario f or agricultural residuals
bi omass. Faci l i tati on by governmental and
agr i cultural organizations and the creation of
di versified markets for Ontari o a g r i c ul t ur a l
r e s i dua l s f u e l ma y i nv i t e i n v e s t ment s
i nto the new bi omass energy i ndustry.
6.3 Designing Targeted Subsidies
Energy from biomass requires incubation action
or subsidy to compete with conventional hydro-
c ar bons . Governments t r yi ng t o pr omot e
bi o-energy provide subsidies for some components
of the biomass supply chain.
Fi gure 6. 2 shows t he maj or component s of
t he biomass supply chain with the processing
component highl i ghted i n red to emphasi ze i ts
hi gh ri sk l evel . I n t he Uni ted Ki ngdom, the
government provided establishment grants to
farmers interested in growing miscanthus and
wi l l ow SRC and created r enewabl e obl i gati on
certificates for the power utilities which generate
electricity from renewable sources. Ther ef or e,
t he f eedst ock pr oduct i on and generati on
components of the supply chain are subsidized
i n the Uni ted Ki ngdom.
In the U.S., the sale price of bi omass, purpose-
grown and agri cultural residuals, to the Show
Me Energy Co-operati ve i n Mi ssouri , are
mat ched by gover nment . The Eur opean
governments have subsided the transportation
cost of wood pellets from British Columbia,
Canada t o European power ut i l i t i es.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

&

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
n
a
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

&

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
n
a
s
Subsidies are provided for renewable energy sources
with the goals of incubating technologies and creating
benefits such as job creation, environmental improve-
ments and reduction in emissions of greenhouse
gases. In Ontario, the feed-in tariff created by the
Green Energy Act also offers premium prices for
electricity from renewable sources, including biomass.
Therefore, the generation component of the biomass
supply chain receives the subsidy. However, based on
market uncertainties and the perceived risks associ-
ated with overcapacity in the densification industry
and the low natural gas price, the processing compo-
nent of the supply chain is an area requiring subsidy
to initiate the biomass power industry in Ontario.
Sharing the risks with the investor through grants and
no-interest loans for early biomass processing plants,
such as fuel aggregators and processors, will be
beneficial. This also helps lower the price premium of
the agricultural biomass due to the perceived risks
associated with the development of the new industry.
6.4 Biomass Fuel and Trade Agreements
OPG prefers sourcing biomass fuel within Ontario.
The Wood Pellet Association of Canada is exploring
the potential pellet opportunity that would result from
the OPG demand (Murray, 2010). Trade agreements
among the provinces and territories of Canada require
that OPG considers biomass fuel from outside Ontario.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
also requires any goods and services valued greater
than $75,000 be open to suppliers in the United
States and Mexico. This could be a trade dispute
issue, if biomass fuels are sourced only from Ontario.
Acquisition of biomass pellets from sources outside
Ontario may be a useful transition step for OPG. The
timeline to establish the entire biomass supply chain
by 2014 is tight. It is feasible with concerted efforts by
all stakeholders, including OPG, farm co-operatives,
governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Sourcing biomass fuel from other regions, especially
British Columbia, would allow for the gradual devel-
opment of the agricultural biomass fuel industry
in Ontario and could moderate the premium price
of biomass due to the rapid start-up of the industry.
6.5 Health and Safety Standards
The following issues may be encountered during the
storage and transportation of biomass fuels:
Development of mould, fungi and bacteria
Exposure to odours for employees and the
general public in the surrounding area
Spontaneous combustion (which was one of the
reasons for closing the strawboard plant in
Western Canada)
Groundwater contamination
Methane generation from microbial activities
(improper ventilation of the storage and
transport faci l i ti es that coul d l ead to
respiration and explosion related workplace
injuries).
Feedstock
Production
Transportation Processing Generation
Figure 6.2 Major Components of the Biomass Supply Chain Receiving Subsidies
Biomass fuels for energy applications at t he
l arge scal e consi dered by OPG are r el at i vel y
new t o Canada and ot her r e gi ons of t he
wor l d. Heal t h and saf et y st andards for this
emerging industry are under development. OPG
should work with provincial health and safety
organizations, the agricultural community and
its counterparts in Europe. The Europeans are
sl i ght l y ahead of Canada i n bi omass power
generation, and coul d hel p create heal th and
saf et y gui del i nes f or t he ent i r e bi omass
suppl y chai n.
6.6 Central versus Distributed Models
The biorefinery concept is the one of the most popular
visions of todays industrial experts and policy makers
with regards to the agricultural sector. The biorefinery
is analogous to a petrochemical refinery and integrates
biomass conversion processes and equipment to
produce different combinations of food, feed, fuels,
power, heat, and high-value chemicals. The biorefinery
may include biogas production from an anaerobic
di gester and the recovery of low grade heat for
other purposes, such as in greenhouses. Due to
the bulky nature of the biomass, the distributed
model is appropriate for biorefineries. This results
in benefits for rural development, better income
distribution and the creation of a new bio-based
manufacturing sector. Utilizing biomass resources
at a centralized location, such as at OPG generating
stations balances t he di st ri but ed model of
bi oref i neri es.
Visionaries and policy makers have promoted
distributed biorefineries for decades, but there
are presently only a few demonstration pl ants
in North America. The low price of conventional
hydrocarbons, market risks for new bio-based
products, and uncertainties in processing tech-
nologies are the reasons for the slow development
of biorefineries. The t hr ee mi l l i on t onnes of
biomass residuals consumed by OPG generating
stati ons woul d resul t i n approximately 20 fuel
aggregators and processors across Ontario. These
fuel aggregators and processors coul d form a
basis for future biorefineries, contributing t o t he
emergence of a new, di st ri but ed bi orefi nery
sect or. The macro economic benefits at t he
provi nci al l evel would be very si gni fi cant due
t o t he OPG bi omass pr ogram and shoul d be
f urther assessed.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

&

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

A
r
e
n
a
s
This agricultural residuals study addresses nine
items outlined by Ontario Power Generation i n
t he Request f or Proposals. A summary of the
f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons f or each i t em of
t he study outl i ne are gi ven bel ow. General
r ecommendat i ons f r o m t h i s s t u d y a r e
p r ov i de d a t t he end of t hi s section.
The report examines sustainable removal of
agri cul t ural resi dual s f rom Ont ari o f arms as
a biomass fuel for OPG, as an alternative to coal.
An est i mat e i s cal cul at ed of t he t ot al annual
producti on of above ground agr i cul t ural
r esi dual s i n Ont ar i o and t he maj or resi dual
producing crops are identified. The estimated
quantity of agricultural residuals that can be
sustainably harvested from Ontario farms is
based on the preservation of soil organic matter
and the minimization of soil erosion.
The current and emergi ng uses of agri cul tural
residuals are identified. Fuel characteri sti cs of
agricultural residuals are examined along with
fuel quality improvement options.
Development of the agricultural residuals biomass
suppl y chai n i s exami ned and i ncl udes the
identification of stakeholders in the supply chain.
Recommended features of the supply chain were
also provided. The estimated cost of biomass fuel
from agri cul tural resi dual s i s determi ned i n
various forms at the OPG gate. Potential issues
due to the development of the bio-energy sector
based on agricultural residuals are identified.
7.1 Summary of Findings and Conclusions
7.1.1 Description and Identification of Agricultural
Residuals for OPG Demand
Major field crops in Ontario produce approximately
13.7 million tonnes annually of above ground
resi dual s. The total production of residuals in
Ontario, including crops such as field vegetables,
fruit crops and greenhouse crops, is estimated to
be 16.7 million tonnes. Grain corn is the largest
residual producing crop, representing approxi -
mately 47% of the total residuals from field
crops. Wi nt er wheat and soybeans are t he
second and third largest residual producing
crops, representing 23% and 19% respecti vely.
The li vestock industry is currently the largest
user of agricultural residuals, specifically cereal
straws. Presently, the demand for agricultural
residuals is around 1.5 million tonnes per
annum. Emergi ng bi o-fuel s and bi o- pr oduct s
i ndust r i es may i ncr ease t he demand for
residuals but the use of residuals in the livestock
industry is likely to remain stable.
Collectively, cereal straw, corn stover, corn cobs and
soybeans stover represent approximately 90% of
the total above ground residuals produced by field
crops in Ontario. These residuals are recommended
as the focus for bio-power generation. Cereal straw
offers the fastest access to the biomass supply,
since farmers currently harvest cereal straw for
sale using the conventional equipment. There is
surplus cereal straw in Ontario. However, the surplus
Chapter7
Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
varies by region. A demand for cereal straw for use
in energy applications beyond 0.75 million tonnes
per year could cause a sharp price increase due to
the strong existing demand from the li vestock
i ndustry. Corn stover and corn cobs may provide
approximately 3.2 million tonnes per year to the
energy industry. The time required for the develop-
ment and deployment of harvesting equipment,
along with the narrow harvesting time window, must
be considered for the harvest of corn residuals.
Approximately 1.2 million tonnes of soybean
stover may be harvested for energy use. However,
use of the best farm management practices such as
growing cover crops to prevent soil erosion is nec-
essary. Corn stover and cereal straw are expected
to be the major biomass fuels from agricultural
residuals in Ontario due to their high residual yields
per hectare.
7.1.2 Chemical Characteristics of Agricultural Residuals
Biomass power generation in Europe and North
America is increasing, and the most widely used
bi omass is from purpose-grown crops such as
switchgrass and miscanthus. Fuel characteristics
of agricultural residuals are similar to purpose-grown
crops. However, residuals contain higher levels of NPK
and other inorganic minerals. This leads to challenges
with agricultural residuals combustion. Corn cobs
offer the best fuel quality of the major agricultural
residuals in Ontario. Corn stover and wheat straw have
higher potassium and silicon contents, respectively.
The fuel properties of agricultural residuals can be
improved through a number of pre-treatment options.
The fuel quality of agricultural residuals is a function
of the farm and soil characteristics. Biomass may also
be contaminated along the supply chain. Blending of
agricultural residuals from various sources at a
centralized biomass processing station will minimize
the effect of higher impurity concentration from a
particular source. Truck transport of biomass fuel
has a higher risk of contamination due to the
greater surface-to-vol ume rati o of the truck
c ontai ner compared to mari ne transport.
Standards and procedures have been devel oped
for the shi pment of grai n, and t hese standards
can be adapted for the transport of agricultural
residuals to reduce contamination and ensure
consistent fuel quality at the OPG gate.
7.1.3 Sustainable Harvesting of Agricultural Residuals
Agricultural residuals left in the soil perform a number
of important functions such as maintain soil moisture,
accommodate beneficial microbes, increase soil or-
ganic matter and recycle plant nutrients back to the
soil. SOM defines the chemical and physical struc-
tures of the soil and is an indicator of the soils overall
health. Maintaining SOM at an appropriate level is
critical to the productivity of agricultural land. Based
on SOM data in different Ontario regions, literature
threshold values, and personal communications with
the farming community, the Ontario average level of
SOM to be maintained was estimated at 3.4%. Soil
erosion by water runoff is also an important factor to
be considered in the harvest of residuals from
Ontario farms. This study concludes that the quantity
of residuals required to preserve the SOM target of
3.4% is generally sufficient to keep soil erosion under
the tolerable limit T value.
The sustainably harvestable quantity of residuals is
farm specific, and depends on the crop rotation, tillage
practices, slope length-gradient factor of the land,
availability of off-farm organic materials, SOM
level of the land and the use of best farm manage-
ment practices. Adoption of conservation tillage
practices are necessary to ensure soil health if a portion
of residuals are to be removed for energy applications.
Approximately 9.6 tonne/ha/yr of below and above
ground residuals are required to maintain the average
3.4% SOM level. Only three field crops in Ontario, grain
corn, winter wheat and hay, produce below and above
ground residuals in quantities greater than 9.6
tonne/ha/yr.
Typical crop rotations in Ontario allow the removal of
a portion of residuals while maintaining a constant
3.4% SOM level. The quantity and type of residual
har vested can be esti mated and identified by
determining the total residuals produced in a
complete crop rotation cycle for each farm. The SOM
budget analysis performed in this study for the
provincial crop mix suggests that a total of 2.8 million
tonnes of agricultural residuals could have been
sustainably harvested in 2009 for non-traditional
applications, including power generation.
2.8 million tonnes is approximately 20% of the total
above ground residuals produced in the province in
2009. Based on an average crop yield i mprovement
of 1% annual l y, the sustai nabl y r emovable
quantity of residuals would increase to 4.5 million
t onnes i n 2014, when OPG may r equi re the
biomass fuel.
7.1.4 Assessment of Residuals Harvesting Technologies
Three major above ground residual producing
crops in Ontario are grain corn, winter wheat and
soybeans. Harvesti ng wheat straw and other
cereal straws is not new to Ontario farmers. Con-
ventional harvesting equipment can be used to
harvest and bail cereal straw. Harvesting soybean
stover requires minor modifications of existing farm
equipment such as removal of the chopper from
the combine. Raking and baling of soybean
st over can be per f or med usi ng exi st i ng
equi pment. Deployment of high capacity balers is
likely necessary to meet the anticipated residuals
demand from OPG.
Research and development of harvesting technologies
mainly focuses on corn cobs and corn stover which
represent the largest quantity of agricultural residuals
in many jurisdictions including Ontario. Harvesting
systems under development include a combine-baler
which attaches to the combine to bale the corn stover
and cobs together. The advantage of the combine-baler
is its ability to harvest both grain and corn residuals in
a single pass. A few corn cob harvesting systems have
been demonstrated in the United States and Canada
with acceptable performance. Corn cob and stover
harvesting technologies are at the prototype stage. A
prototype is a commercially sized unit undergoing final
debugging prior to commercial release. This study
determined that harvesting technologies under devel-
opment are relatively simple devices consisting mainly
of belts, pneumatics, blowers and screens to separate
various components of the residuals. They will likely
be commercialized within a short time period with
minor technical problems resolved quickly.
7 . 1 . 5 As s e s s me nt of Suppl y Cha i n a nd
Pot ent i al Suppl i ers
The suppl y chai n does not currently exist to
deliver agricultural residual biomass fuel to OPG
generating stations. Agricultural residuals are
presently available as a feedstock since Ontario
farmers generate these materials as a co-product
of the crop each year. Theref ore, t hi s f eedst ock
i s easi l y accessible in comparison with feed-
stocks obtained from energy crops. Harvesting of
cereal straw and soybean stover can be performed
using existing farm equipment but the development
and deployment of specialized farming equipment for
corn residuals is necessary to establish the large
scale feedstock supply chain component.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
The major missing component in the residuals supply
chain is biomass processing to produce torrefied or
un-torrefied pellets. Construction of a biomass fuel
aggregator and processor typically requires 18
months. This fits within approximately 4 years
required for the development of the entire biomass
supply chain. A commercial torrefaction plant in Eu-
rope began operation in 2010 and this technology
has the potential to become incorporated into the
Ontario supply chain. The transportation component
of the supply chain to deliver biomass fuel to OPG
currently exists in Ontario. The marine shipping
mode is preferred from both the local truck traffic
congestion and cost effectiveness perspectives.
The participation of farm co-operatives, existing or
new generation, in the biomass fuel business is the
preferred option. This maximizes local community
involvement. Contracts with independent operators
would diversify the supplier base for OPG, and this
option could be coupled with farm co-operative
suppliers. Contracting the biomass supply to a central
facilitating agricultural organization, like the OFA,
would substantially reduce the administrative work for
OPG related to contract management. Due to the
narrow harvesting time window for corn residuals,
third party harvesting organizations should be
included in the supply chain. A regularly scheduled
soil health monitoring mechanism as part of the
supply contract is recommended. Linking the price of
agricultural residuals to the crude oil price during
the initial supply chain development is beneficial and
would reduce the financial risk to feedstock suppliers.
7.1.6 Economic Evaluation of Biomass Fuel from
Agricultural Residuals
The price of cereal straw, for which there is currently a
strong market in Ontario provides a basis for estimat-
ing the costs of other residuals. The total costs of cereal
straw and corn stover pellets at the OPG gate are
$6.00/GJ and $6.57/GJ, respectively, with a total
potential supply of 4.5 million tonnes in 2014. Pellets
from cereal straws offer the lowest cost but the total
supply of cereal straw at this lower cost is limited to
0.75 million tonnes due to existing demands. The cost
of corn stover pellets was estimated at $6.57/GJ with
over 3 million tonnes of potential supply. Biomass
fuel from agricultural residuals is approximately 20%
lower cost than from energy crops due to lower raw
feedstock costs. Pellets from corn cobs and soybean
stover have higher costs compared to cereal straw
pellets and is due to lower yields per hectare and the
activities involved in harvesting and bailing. The gross
margin from the sale of residuals was assumed to be
$50/ha. These economics may result in farmers leaving
the low yielding residuals in the field for SOM
repl enishment. The estimated cost of biomass fuel
will likely decrease through the economy of scale as
the industry grows.
Torrefied pellets are gaining attention from biomass
fuel consumers due to their superior fuel quality and
better fuel handling and storage properties. The
performance of commercial torrefaction plants in
Europe is expected to lead to the deployment of
this fuel improving and processing technology in
North America. The cost of torrefied biomass from
agricultural residuals at the OPG gate could be
approximately 10% lower than untorrefied pellets,
when t he bi omass i s t orref i ed pri or t o t he
pel l eti zati on process. This is due to lower grinding
and pelletizing expenses of torrefied bi omass
and reduced transportati on costs. Opposi tel y,
if the bi omass is pelletized before torrefaction,
t he cost of t orrefied pellets would be higher
than regular pellets at the OPG gate.
7.1.7 Potential Issues in the Agricultural and Political
Arenas
Soil degradation concerns will be raised by soil
conservationalists and environmentalists if residuals
are removed from farms for energy and other non-
traditional applications. Removal of a portion of
agricultural residuals is not new to Ontario farmers.
Adoption of conservation tillage, use of best farm
management practices (such as growing cover
crops), and understanding the relationship between
the different crop rotations and the quantity of
residuals that can be removed are critical to sustain-
able harvesting of residuals. OPG should collaborate
with organizations like the Ontario Soil and Crop
Improvement Association (OSCIA) and the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture (OFA) to develop guidelines
and monitoring processes for sustainable harvesting
of agricultural residuals.
Currently, the biomass processing component is the
main missing link in the biomass supply chain.
Stakeholders are aware of the risks associated with
investing in fuel aggregators and processors due to the
current relatively low price of natural gas and the over
capacity of the biomass densification i ndustry.
I nvestors, such as farm co-operatives, want reason-
able assurance of markets with long-term contracts
and attractive pricing. Targeted subsidies for the
processing component of the supply chain will be
benefi ci al f or t hi s new i ndust r y. Since the
biomass fuel industry offers the economic benefits
of rural development and j ob creation, collabo-
ration with agricultural organizations which are
advocating for targeted subsidies from the govern-
ments can be helpful.
Trade agreements among the provinces and territories
of Canada and the North American Free Trade Agree-
ment (NAFTA) may require that OPG considers
biomass fuels sourced from outside Ontario. This
could be a potential trade dispute issue if biomass is
sole sourced in Ontario. Utilizing biomass fuels for
energy applications at the large scale considered by
OPG is relatively new to both Canada and other
regions of the world. Health and safety standards
for this emerging industry are under development.
OPG should work with provincial health and safety
organizations, the agricultural community and its
counterparts in Europe to create health and safety
guidelines for the entire biomass supply chain.
7.1.8 Evaluation of Fuel Improvement Options
Rain washing of agricultural residuals in the field is an
attractive option for fuel improvement and returning
NPK directly to the soil. Over-wintering signifi-
cantly reduces the mineral content of biomass. In
Ontario, over-wintering may result in a considerable
reduction of the residual yield due to high snowfall
in some regions. This will affect northern and
snowbelt regions of Ontario severely. Controlled
washing of agricultural residuals with water or acid is
effecti ve i n reduci ng the mi neral content of
bi omass. These approaches are only proven at the
l aboratory scale and economics and scalability
of t he technol ogi es are not yet determi ned.
Torrefaction and pelletization are complementary
processes which produce a high quality fuel and may
be used in combination with other pre-treatment
technologies to further improve fuel properties.
NPK and other inorganic nutrients in agricultural
residuals could be recovered by existing and emerging
technologies. Phosphorus recovery technologies for
municipal waste may be applied to the recovery of
NPK from agricultural residuals. Chemical additives,
namely calcite, kaolin and limestone, may also
i mprove the fuel quality of residuals during
combustion. Optimization of additive treatments for
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
large boilers and the economics of addi t i ve use
ar e not yet det ermi ned. Fuel i mprovement
technologies ar e r el at i vel y s i mpl e and are
expected to be commercialized when a strong
market has developed for biomass fuels from
agricultural residuals.
7.1.9 Feasibility of Utilizing Agricultural Residuals as
Biomass Fuel for OPG
It is feasible for OPG to utilize agricultural residuals as
a biomass fuel. The total sustainably harvestable
residuals in Ontario is estimated to be 4.5 million
tonnes annually in 2014. This is approximately 20% of
the total above ground residuals produced in Ontario.
The current Ontario crop mix and yields provide a
total of 2.8 million tonnes of residuals that could
have been sustainably harvested in 2009. With a
conservative prediction of a 1% annual crop yield
improvement, the 2.8 million tonne/yr will increase to
4.5 million tonnes in 2014 when OPG may need
biomass fuels. Initiation and development of the
residual biomass supply chain and related industries
is expected to require approximately 4 years, start-
ing with the biomass supply contract. Development
of this biomass fuel supply chain prior to the 2014
harvesting season will require the biomass supply
contracts to be established early in 2011.
Third party harvesting can play an important role in the
Ontario biomass supply chain due to the narrow
harvesting time window for grain corn, the largest
residual producing crop. Surplus cereal straw, especially
in southern Ontario, can contribute to the biomass
feedstock supply. Use of torrefaction technologies,
now at commercial scale in Europe, in the supply
chain produces a coal-like biomass fuel from agricul-
tural residuals. The cost of biomass fuel from agri-
cultural residuals may be slightly higher than
natural gas in 2010. The benefits of a bi omass
r enewabl e fuel are rural development and job
creation, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and future biorefinery development.
7.2 General Recommendations
The following general recommendations are provided
to OPG based on this study:
Biomass supply contracts should be in place
approximately 4 years before supply is required.
This allows time for development of the biomass
supply chain, specifically biomass processing.
Risk-sharing mechanisms, such as linking a
portion of the cost of biomass supply to the
price of crude oil, may be requi red duri ng
the i ni ti al stage of development. A biomass
fuel specification must be devel oped and
adopted to accommodate the development
and i ncor por at i on of f uel i mprovement
technologies, such as torrefaction, into the
supply chain. A strong market for residual
biomass fuels will drive commercialization of a
number of emerging technologies, such as NPK
recovery, t orrefaction, additization
and pelletization.
Agricultural residuals contain higher amounts of
NPK and other inorganic compunds compared
to energy crops and forestry products.
Comprehensive fuel performance testing at
100% agricultural biomass firing must be
conducted to determine the combustion charac-
teristics of residuals. OPG should explore the use
of a mixture of wood pellets and agricultural
residual pellets during the early stages of the
biomass fuel utilization. This allows more time
for continued development of the residuals
biomass supply chain. The reliance on wood
biomass can subsequently be reduced and
replaced with biomass from agricultural
residuals and energy crops.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Agricultural residuals are currently available
from Ontario farmers as a co-product of
their crops. Construction of fuel aggregators
and processors across Ontario may require
subsidy or assistance. The biomass densifica-
tion industry in Canada is currently at over
capacity due to decreased pellet demand from
Europe. OPG should work with agricultural
organizati ons to create subsidies, such as
interest fee loans from government to
launch this new industry.
There is not sufficient biomass densification
capacity in Ontario for the preparation of 3
million tonnes of biomass fuel per year.
Fuel aggregators and processors can be
constructed by 2014 with concerted efforts
by all stakeholders. There will likely be a price
premium associated with the rapid establish
ment of this new industry. OPG should explore
the option of acquiring biomass fuel from
sources outside Ontario during the initial
stages of industry development.
There are benefits to utilizing agricultural
residuals as a renewable fuel, even though
the biomass residual fuel is not fully cost
competitive with 2010 natural gas prices in
North America. These benefits include contin-
ued viability of the agricultural sector in Ontario,
rural development and job creation, enhanced
income distribution between rural and urban
communities, a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions and the development of a
basis for future biorefinery infrastructure.
These benefits should be quantified and
communicated to policy makers.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s

&

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
Adler, P.R., Sanderson, M.A., Boateng, A.A., Weimer,
P.J., Jung, H.-J.G., 2006. Biomass Yield and Biofuel
Quality of Switchgrass Harvested in Fall or Spring.
Agronomy Journal, 98, 1518-1525.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2007. Pulses and
Special Crops: Ginseng.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2008. 2002/2003
Canadian Fruit Situation and Trends Including Apples,
Tender Fruits, Grapes (Vinifera) and Berries: Berries.
Altman, I.J., Sanders, D.R., Boessen, C.R., 2007. Apply-
ing Transaction Cost Economics: A Note on Biomass
Supply Chains. Journal of Agribusiness, 25(1), 107-114.
Anand Kumer, K., Clement, M-F., Belanger, P., Belanger,
A., Vanasse, A., Belair, G., Sritharan, R., Andrews, D. J.,
Danji, O. P., 2009. Pearl Millet, Potential Renewable
Energy Crop. Third Annual Growing the Margins
Conference, London, Ontario, Canada, March 10-13, 2009.
Arvelakis, S., 2009. Use of Pretreatments for the
Efficient Conversion of Coal, Woody, and Agricultural
Biomass to Energy and Fuels. Energy and Environmental
Research Center (EERC), University of North Dakota, USA.
ASTM International, 2006. Standard Test Methods for
Analysis of Wood Fuels. ASTM E870.
Bernick, J., 2009. Cob Harvest Makes Strides.
AgWeb.com, November 2009.
Bradley, D., 2009. Canada Report on Bioenergy 2009.
Climate Change Solutions.
Brostrom, M., Kassman, H., Helggesson, A., Berg, M.,
Andersson, C., Backman, R., Nordin,A., 2007. Sulfation
of Corrosive Alkali Chlorides by Ammonium Sulphate
in a Biomass Fired CFB Boiler. Fuel Processing
Technology, 88, 1171-1177.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2006. Inspection
Procedure: Inspecting Ships that Carry Grain and Grain
Products for Export. PI-008.
Canadian Grain Commission, 2009. Chapter 6: Control
of Spoilage and Heating. Spoilage and Heating of
Stored Agricultural Products.
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, 2009. Corn Cobs
as Sustainable Biomass for Renewable Energy, a Field-
to-Facility Demonstration and Feasibility Study. AURI.
Cowan, D., 2010. Personal Communication.
Downing, M., Volk, T.A., Schmidt, D.A., 2005. Development
of New Generation Cooperatives in Agriculture for
Renewable Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28, 425-434.
Drax Group plc, 2010a. Annual Report and Accounts
2009.
Drax Group plc, 2010b. Biomass: the Fourth Energy
Source.
Duffy, M. D. and Nanhou, V. Y., 2002. Costs of Producing
Switchgrass for Biomass in Southern Iowa. Trends in
New Crops and New Uses, Janick, J. and Whipkey, A.
(eds.). ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.
Ebert, J., 2008. Agricultural Versus Industrial Waste for
Energy. Biomass Magazine, February 2008.
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. Phyllis
Database (www.ecn.nl/phyllis/).
EPR, 2010. Ely. (www.eprl.co.uk/assets/ely/detail.html).
References:
EUBIONET, 2003. Biomass Co-Firing An Efficient Way
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. European
Bioenergy Networks.
Fisher, P., 2004. Cold Acclimation in Strawberries: How
Strawberry Plants Get Ready for Winter. OMAFRA.
Flick, S., 2009. Personal Communication.
Flynn, B. and Neilson, D., 2010. International Pulpwood
Trade Review, 2010 Edition.
Flynn, B., 2010. International Woodchip and Biomass
Trade - Ups and Downs in 2009. RISI Economists,
March, 2010.
Flynn, P., 2007. Biomass Energy: Cost and Scale Issues.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Alberta. www.aeri.ab.ca/news&resources/presenta-
tions.
Gollany, H. T., Novak, J. M., Liang, Y., Albrecht, S. L.,
Rickman, R. W., Follett, R. F., Wilhelm, W. W. and Hunt,
P. G., 2010. Simulating Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics
with Residue Removal Using the CQESTR Model. Jour-
nal of Soil Science, American Society, 74(2), 372-383.
Grooms, L., 2010. Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Grand
Opening. Farm Industry News, January 2010.
Hamilton, T., 2009. The Use of Straw to Stretch Feed
Supplies for Wintering Beef Cows. OMAFRA.
Helwig, T., Jannasch, R., Samson, R., DeMaio, A. And
Caumartin, D., 2002. Agricultural Biomass Residue In-
ventories and Conversion Systems for Energy Produc-
tion in Eastern Canada. Natural Resources Canada.
IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Biomass Database
(http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/biomass.php)
Jenkins, B.M., Bakker, R.R., Wei, J.B., 1996. On the
Properties of Washed Straw. Biomass and Bioenergy,
10, 177-200.
Kains, F., Lovell, B., Payne, M., Tremblay, R., 1997. Live-
stock Bedding Alternatives. OMAFRA.
Karwandy, J., 2007. Pellet Production From Sawmill
Residue: A Saskatchewan Perspective. Report prepared
for the Saskatchewan Forest Centre.
Kessel, C., 2008. Aluminum Soil Test Foils Growers.
OMAFRA.
Khan, A.A., de Jong, W., Jansens, P.J., Spliethoff, H.,
2009. Biomass Combustion in Fluidized Bed Boilers:
Potential Problems and Remedies. Fuel Processing
Technology, 90, 21-51.
Kiel, J., 2007. Torrefaction for Biomass Upgrading into
Commodity Fuels. IEA Bioenergy Task 32 Workshop on
Fuel Storage, Handling and Preparation and System
Analysis for Biomass Combustion Technologies, Berlin,
7 May 2007.
Kong, A. Y., Johan, S., Bryant, D. C., Denison, R. F. and
Kessel, C. V., 2005. The Relationship Between Carbon
Input, Aggregation, and Soil Organic Carbon Stabilization
in Sustainable Cropping Systems. Journal of Soil
Science, American Society, 69, 1078-1085.
Library USDA, 2010. Biomass Producers and Energy
Facilities Benefit from Innovative USDA Program.
Farms.com.
Livingston, B., Babcock, M., 2006. Ash Related Issues
in Biomass Combustion. ThermalNet.
Loveland P. and Webb J., 2003. Is There a Critical Level
of Organic Matter in the Agricultural Soils of Temperate
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
Regions? A Review. Soil Tillage Research, 70, 118.
Maciejewska, A., Veringa, H., Sanders, J., Peteves, S.D.,
2006. Co-firing of Biomass with Coal: Constraints and
Role of Biomass Pre-Treatment. European Commission.
Mani, S., 2006, Simulation of Biomass Pelleting
Operation. University of British Columbia, Bioenergy
Conference & Exhibition 2006, Prince George.
Mason, R., 2010. Drax Says Its Condemned to a
Carbon Future. The Daily Telegraph, February 23, 2010.
McConkey, B., Hutchinson, J., Smith, W., Grant, B. and
Desjardins, R., 2005. Soil Organic Carbon, Environmental
Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Agri-Environ-
mental Indicator Report Series Report #2. Edited by
Lefebvre, A., Eilers, W. and Chunn, B., Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada.
McKay, J., 2010. Producers Face Biomass Burnout.
Business in Vancouver, July 13-19, 2010.
Miles, T.R., Baxter, L.L., Bryers, R.W., Jenkins, B.M.,
Oden, L.L., 1996. Alkali Deposits Found in Biomass
Power Plants, Volume II. National Laboratory System
of the U.S. Department of Energy. NREL/TP-433-8142.
Mittag, M., Ghylin, T., Dupuis, T., Cavanaugh, L., 2008.
Appendix P. Dry Cargo Residue Discharge Analysis
Using Mathematical Simulations. Dry Cargo Residue
Discharge Analysis for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Molnar, S., Wright, B., 2006. Evaluating Performance
of Several Horse Beddings. OMAFRA.
Murray, G., 2010. Canadian Wood Pellet Industry
Overview, Wood Pellet Association of Canada, Presen-
tation by Gordon Murray, Executive Director, Dated
July 19, 2010.
Mushrooms Canada, 2010. Mushroom Production in
Canada.
Newman, R., 2003. MISCANTHUS: Practical Aspects
of Biofuel Development. ETSU B/W2/00618/REP URN
03/1568. New and Renewable Energy Programme,
Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom.
OFA, 2010. Personal Communication.
OMAFRA, 2006. Summary of Agriculture Statistics for
Ontario. OMAFRA.
OMAFRA, 2010. Field Crops Statistics. Available:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index
.html
Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham,
R. L., Stokes, B. J., Erbach D. C., 2005. Biomass as
Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply.
Report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy and
Department of Agriculture.
Ralston, S.L., Wright, B., 2005. Forage Substitutes for
Horses. OMAFRA.
Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)-
Canada, 2008. Optimization of Switchgrass Manage-
ment for Commercial Fuel Pellet Production.
OMAFRA-Alternative Renewable Fuels Research and
Development Fund.
Ricketson, C.L., 2004. Strawberries for Home Gardens.
OMAFRA.
Ringwall, K., 2009. BeefTalk: Bedding Beef Cows Is
Essential, NDSU Agriculture Communication, April 22,
2009.
Saidak, T., 2010. Minnesota Alfalfa Producers Prep Crop
Rotation for Ethanol Production. Biofuels Digest, July
2010.
Saimbi, S. and Hart, D., 2010. Drax Offers Model for
Cofiring Biomass. Power, 154(7), 52-55.
Samson, R., 2008. Optimization of Switchgrass
Management for Commercial Fuel Pellet Production,
Final Report (draft copy) at www.reap-canada.com,
REAP-Canada.
Schooley, J., 2009. Cost of Production of 1 Acre of
Ginseng in Ontario. OMAFRA.
Sokhansanj, S. and Fenton, J., 2006. Cost Benefit of
Biomass Supply and Pre-Processing, BIOCAP Research
Integration Program, Synthesis Paper, BIOCAP Canada.
Sorensen, A. L., 2005. Economies of Scale in Biomass
Gasification System, Interim Report IR-05-030, Interna-
tional Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria.
Statistics Canada, 2002. Livestock Feed Requirements
Study 1999-2001. Catalogue no. 23-501-XIE.
Statistics Canada, 2007. 2006 Census of Agriculture,
Farm Data and Farm Operator Data. Catalogue no.
95-629-XWE.
Statistics Canada, 2007. Shipping in Canada.
Catalogue no. 54-205-X.
Statistics Canada, 2010. Cattle Statistics. Catalogue no.
23-012-X.
Steenari, B.-M., Lundberg, A., Pettersson, H., Wilewska-Bien,
M., Andersson, D., 2009. Investigation of Ash Sintering
During Combustion of Agricultural Residues and the
Effect of Additives. Energy and Fuels, 23, 5655-5662.
Taylor, L., 2010. From Straw to Starting Line: Canadian
Farmers Power Formula One Cars. Montreal Gazette,
March 15, 2010.
Ti etz, N. , 2010. Bi omass Co-op Gears Up for
Expansion. Hay & Forage Grower, February 2010.
Turin, S.Q., Kinoshita, C.M., Ishimura, D.M., 1997.
Removal of Inorganic Constituents of Biomass
Feedstocks by Mechanical Dewatering and Leaching.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 12(4), 241-252.
Vamvuka, D., Troulinos, S., Kastanaki, E., 2006. The
Effect of Mineral Matter on the Physical and Chemical
Activation of Low Rank Coal and Biomass Materials.
Fuel, 85, 1763-1771.
Vienna University of Technology, BIOBIB Database
(www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/search/html)
Voroney, R. P., 1988. Loss of Organic Matter in Ontario
Soil, Highlights, 15(3), 25-28.
Voroney, R. P., 2010. All You Ever Wanted to Know About
Soil Organic Matter and Soil C Sequestration: Myths
and Reality, Presented as the Special Guest Speaker
at Research Progress Review Meeting with OPG
personnel, The Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus.
Voroney, R. P., Paul, E. A., and Anderson, D. W., 1989.
Decomposition of Wheat Straw and Stabilization of
Microbial Products. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,
69, 63-77.
Wanniarachchi, S. D., Voroney, R. P., Vyn, T. J., Beyaert,
R. P. And MacKenzie, A. F., 1999. Tillage Effects on the
Dynamics of Total and Corn-Residue-Derived Soil
Organic Matter in Two Southern Ontario Soils.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 473-480.
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
Werther, J., Saenger, M., Hartge, E.-U., Ogada, T., Siagi,
Z., 2000. Combustion of Agricultural Residues.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 26, 1-27.
Wehrspann, J., 2009. Concept Cob Collectors. Farm
Industry News, February 2009.
Wood, K. And Swanson, K., 2009. Corn Stalkage and
Wheat Straw in Wintering Beef Cow Diets. OMAFRA.
Xiong, S., Burvall, J., Orberg, H., Kalen, G., Thyrel, M.,
Ohman, M., Bostrom, D., 2008. Slagging Characteristics
During Combustion of Corn Stovers With and Without
Kaolin and Calcite. Energy and Fuels, 22, 3465-3470.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Appendix A
OPG Agricultural Residuals Study Outline
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Appendix B
Ontario Agricultural Census Regions & Constituents
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Appendix C
Summary of Agricultural Statistics for Ontario
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Appendix D
Determination of Water-Soluble Alkali
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
Appendix E
CEN/TC 335 Biomass Standards
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

F
Appendix F
Inspection Procedure for Ships that Carry Grain and Grain Products
(Procedure Reference and Table of Contents Only)
In"ec#ion P!oced$!e
In"ec#ing Shi" #ha# ca!!( G!ain and G!ain P!od$c#" fo!
E'o!#
Plan# Heal#h Di%i"ion,
Plan# P!od$c#" Di!ec#o!a#e,
Canadian Food In"ec#ion Agenc(
59 Camelo# D!i%e!
O##a&a, On#a!io Canada
K1A 0Y9
In"ec#ing Shi" #ha# ca!!( G!ain and G!ain P!od$c#" fo! E'o!# Page 1 of 44
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

F
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

F
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

G
Appendix G
Experimental Results on the Use of Fuel Improvement Additives
The Bioindustrial Innovation Centre Shared Services Lab at The Research Park, Sarnia-Lambton Campus,
conducted an experimental investigation into the effect of solid additives on biomass ash melting points.
The biomass samples were collected in Lambton County.
The results of these tests are given in the following tables. These data represent the ash properties of a
single sample of residuals. In general, kaolin was the most effective additive at 3 wt% to increase the
melting temperature of the biomass ash.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

G
Design: Roundtable Creative Group Inc.
Note: It is believed that the higher than normal melting temperature of this no additives corn stover ash sample
is due to the leaching of minerals from the biomass before collection from the field. Additives had a small effect
on the melting temperatures of the ash from this corn stover ash due to its already low mineral content.
Developing leadership in
bioindustrial technology
The Re&ea%ch Pa%k, Sa%"ia-La!b'#" Ca!$(& i&
$#&i'i#"ed a& Ca"ada.& ce"'%e #f e+cee"ce f#%
'he c#!!e%ciai-a'i#" a"d %e&ea%ch #f a%ge-
&ca e bi#i"d(&'%ia 'ech"##g,. The Bi#i"d(&'%ia
I""#)a'i#" Ce"'%e i& #ca'ed a' The Pa%k *i'h
&$ace a)aiabe '# h#&' $%#jec' *#%k. Thi& ce"'%e
*i he $ #(% i "d(&'%i a $a%'"e%& '# &cae ($
'ech"##gie& a"d '(%" 'he! i"'# %ea )a (e
added '## & 'ha' *i a''%ac' "e* i")e&' !e"'
' # #(% %egi #" a"d &($$#% ' c(% %e"' i ")e&' -
!e"' . A" i"i'ia i")e&'!e"' f%#! 'he C#("', #f
La!b'#" a"d 'he Ci', #f Sa%"ia a"d a $10 !ii#"
i ")e&' !e"' f%#! 'he P%#)i"ce #f O"'a%i# *e%e
b#&'e%ed b, $15 !ii#" i" f("di"g 'h%#(gh
Ca"ada.& fede%a &ci e"ce a"d 'ech"##g, &'%a'-
eg,. S(cce&& ha& a%ead, bee" achi e)ed i" #)e%
200 #ca $%#j ec'& !a"aged be'*ee" The Pa%k
a"d i "d(&'%, '# %ec%(i' a"d %e'ai" $%#fe&&i#"a&
f#% 'he %egi#". P%#jec'& a%e a%ead, ("de%*a, a"d
ha)e acce&& '# f("di "g ad!i "i &'e%ed b, a"
i "d(&'%,-ed c#("ci, 'he S(&'ai"abe Che!i&'%,
A i a"ce. We *i c#"' i "(e ' # b(i d #" ' he
!#!e"'(! #f 'he c#!!("i', #f Sa%"ia-La!b'#",
'he *#%k #f ' he B (e*a'e% S(&'ai"abii', I"i'ia-
'i)e a"d #(% $a%'"e%& a' La!b'#" C#ege a"d
'he U"i)e%&i', #f We&'e%" O"'a%i#.
Call Don He#son,
Managing Direcor, Ind!srial Liaison
(519) 383-8303 or "isi ###.researchpark.ca

Assessment of Agricultural Residuals As Fuel For Power Generation For OPG - 2010

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Assessment of Agricultural Residuals As Fuel For Power Generation For OPG - 2010

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

It has been a wonderful opportunity and thrilling

learning experience for our team at The University of

Вам также может понравиться