Research Seminar on Precision supply of Forest Biomass for Energy 3.9.2012.

2. Waterways a future backbone ofWaterways – a future backbone of
feedstock supply?
Research Seminar on Precision supply of Forest Biomass for Energy
3 9 2012 Joensuu3.9.2012 Joensuu
Kalle Karttunen, Project Manager
Lappeenranta University of Technology,
LUT Savo Sustainable Technologies,
Bioenergy TechnologyBioenergy Technology,
Mikkeli

3. ContentContent
› Current and future situation of forest fuel supply markets in Finland
› Inland waterway transport supply chain of forest biomass
› Material and Methods
› Results and Discussion
› Conclusion

4. Current and future situation
of forest chips supply market
− In 2011 forest chips use was 7.5 million m3 (~ 14 TWh),
which was almost 4% of total energy use in Finland
All of this was transported by trucks either as chips or as− All of this was transported by trucks either as chips or as
uncomminuted material
− Only some trials with trains and barges/vessels have been
used
− The target is to almost double its use to 13 5 million m3− The target is to almost double its use to 13.5 million m3
(25 TWh) by 2020
− In practice, there is imbalance between locations of
d d d l f f t hidemand and supply of forest chips
The transport distances will be increasedThe transport distances will be increased
The new logistical innovations and also other transport
modes will be needed to fulfill the target

5. Current and future situation
of forest chips supply market
Ylitalo 2012:
Small scale use. 9%
Other, -
%
Ylitalo 2012:
Rotten wood. 7%
Stumps. 13%
Logging residues, 30%
Energy wood, 41%
se,TWh
Energy wood, 41%
chipsusForestc
-Small-sized energy wood is the biggest source of forest chips now!

6. Current and future situation
of forest chips supply market%
Share of volumes 2011:
ychains,
Share of volumes 2011:
Stationary chipping,18%
Terminal chipping 21%
ofsupply
Terminal chipping, 21%
Roadside chipping, 61%
Share
Roadside chipping has been the biggest production-Roadside chipping has been the biggest production
method of forest chips!
-Share of terminal chipping is expeced to grow

7. Inland waterway transport
supply chain of forest biomasssupply chain of forest biomass
• Background:
• Finnish waterways can be used for inland and coastal transport• Finnish waterways can be used for inland and coastal transport
• Waterway transportation has been used for round wood logistics
• Cost competitiveness of waterway transport is based on large-
sizes and long-distances with lower costs, 0.046 €/m3km (truck:
0.064 €/m3km)
• Barge and vessel logistics could also be used for transport of• Barge and vessel logistics could also be used for transport of
forest chips
• Inland waterway transport of forest fuels “by barges”
• Climbus project in 2006-2008, Financed by Tekes and
private companies
Practical demonstrations and scientific simulations• Practical demonstrations and scientific simulations
• Karttunen, K., Väätäinen, K., Asikainen, A. & Ranta, T.
2012. The Operational Efficiency of Waterway
Transport of Forest Chips on Finland s Lake Saimaa.
Silva Fennica 46 (3): 395-413.

8. Why barge?
- Large volume of barge itself (vs.
15-50 average truck loads)15 50 average truck loads)
- It´s possible to increase
number of barges in transportg p
logistics
AND/OR
- It is possible to increase number of
barges as a part of interchangeable
logistics or use cheaper barges
as storages
= The main idea is to decrease transport costs and get the logistics more effective
= More expensive tug-boats should be driven optimally

9. Aim of the studyAim of the study
 Study the logistics and the operations efficiency Study the logistics and the operations efficiency
of waterway transport of forest chips in the lake
SaimaaSaimaa
 using the practical demonstrations and discrete-event
simulation as a study method
 Find out the most cost efficient options in barge
transport logisticstransport logistics
 Vessel size, load size, number of barges, transport logistics,
harbour logistics
 Cost comparison of transportation methods –
waterway vs road ( hi t k)waterway vs. road (chip truck)
 In a function of transporting distance and annual machine
use

10. Waterway transport logistics
There are several ways of organizing waterway transport with
alternative loading/unloading operations and tug-boat/bargesg g g g

11. Material and methods
 Study area: Lake Saimaa region iny g
Eastern Finland
 Forest fuel terminals and end-use
facilities right next to harbours andfacilities right next to harbours and
waterways with bigger tug-boat
systems (except Mikkeli route only for smaller
t b t)tug-boat)
 Forest fuel use of power plants and
biorefinery was based on the futurey
expected needs; 2015 (Varkaus 2000
GWh, Mikkeli 500 GWh, Savonlinna 120 GWh)
 Study allocation of forest chip
60%
Study allocation of forest chip
transportation by waterways: 60 % to
Varkaus, 30 % to Mikkeli and 10 % to Savonlinna
30%
10%
= Forest fuel terminal, loading
= End use of forest fuel, unloading

12. Material and methods
− 1. Demostration study
− 2a. Simulation study
-WITNESS - business simulationWITNESS business simulation
system is the suitable method for
complex supply chain analysis
-Discrete-event simulation include the
rules for each event in the system
In this presentation:
-Coordination operator
as a organizational model
-Designed by: Kari Väätäinen
(subcontracting, Metla)

13. Material and methods
2b Simulation2b. Simulation
= Forest fuel terminal, loading
= End use of forest fuel, unloading
Other simulation study with same model:
- In one company concept biomass is transported from two terminals to one user site
-Contracting as a organizational model
-Some barge models and concepts were changed
-(Korpinen et al. 2010), LUT. Hiltunen, Bachelor´s thesis, UEF

14. Material and methods
1 Demonstrations1. Demonstrations
• Demonstrations were arranged in order to attain the
information needed for the simulations and to understand the
f ti lit f th ti f t t tfunctionality of the operations of waterway transports
• The objectives of demonstrations were to compare:
1. Alternative chipping systems
• roadside chipping and terminal chipping
• Question: Which system could be working better in
practice before waterway transport?
2 P d ti it f l di th d2. Productivity of loading methods
• material handling machines vs. digger (different
power, scoop size, concept) and wheeled front loader
+ belt conveyor+ belt conveyor
• Question: Is there productivity and unit cost
differences between alternative methods?
3 Energy density of chip truck and barge load3. Energy density of chip truck and barge load
• Chip truck used in demonstration (120 and 140 m3)
• Hopper barge loads used in demonstration (800 tn
hold capacity and 1200 tn heaped/compressedhold capacity and 1200 tn heaped/compressed
capacity)
• Question: Is there density differences between of
trucks and barges?

15. Material and methods
2a. Simulation
System structure of simulation
 Basic assumption – always forest chips available to transport
 Simulation system contains the harbour operations (loading/unloading) and barge
transportation by waterwaystransportation by waterways
 Simulation based on the fleet in 2008 of barge transport (Vessel called Arppe
allready sold away)
 Vessels (tug-boats) and barges:
 Vessels: 1. Tapio: small tug-boat, 900,000 € (342 kWh)
2 Arppe: big tug-boat 3 6 milj € (2x750 kWh)2. Arppe: big tug-boat, 3,6 milj. € (2x750 kWh)
 Barges: 1. Deck barge, 600,000 € (capacity 500 tons)
2. Hopper barge, 1 milj. € (capacity 1,200–1,800 tons)
Hopper barge Deck bargeTapio: small tug-boat Arppe: big tug-boat

16. Material and methods
Simulation Scenarios
 Each scenario: 5 x 9 months (5 x 6 600 hours)Each scenario: 5 x 9 months (5 x 6 600 hours)
 Randomness (load size, loading/unloading productivities, route speeds)
 Vessels were operating as one-way trips
 Used unit: ton moisture content (demo): 39 %  3 MWh/tonUsed unit: ton, moisture content (demo): 39 %  3 MWh/ton
 Study scenarios:
 1 Transport logistics:1. Transport logistics:
 Fixed-barge logistic
 Interchangeable-barge logistic
 Fixed with two bargesFixed with two barges
 2. Barge logistics:
 Tapio smaller tug-boat:Tapio, smaller tug boat:
 500 tons (deck barge) x2
 1200 tons (hopper barge, towing!!  speed reduction 2 km/h)
 Arppe bigger tug-boat: Arppe, bigger tug-boat:
 1200 tons (hopper barge) x2
 1800 tons (hopper barge with extra edges)

17. Material and methods
Simulation ScenariosSimulation Scenarios
 3. Harbour logistics:
 Loading and unloading with hydraulic harbour cranes withing g y
work-shifts at harbour (shift dependent)
Loading UnloadingTransport
 Loading with mobile belt conveyor and wheeled front loader,
unloading with harbour cranes (partly shift dependent)unloading with harbour cranes (partly shift dependent)
Loading UnloadingTransport
 Loading and unloading with mobile belt conveyor and
wheeled front loader (shift independent)
L di U l diLoading Transport Unloading

18. Material and methods
Cost calculations
C t t t ti f ll l h i l t i l d d ( i Cost structure accounting for all supply chain elements included (average price
level of 2007)
 Cost data collected from entrepreneurs or other surveys Cost data collected from entrepreneurs or other surveys
 Productivity data from demonstration and other surveys
 Unit costs: Hourly cost / Productivity. (Loader, for example: 95 €/h / 525 MWh/h = 0.18 €/MWh)
 The costs of other elements of the supply chain were constant before long-The costs of other elements of the supply chain were constant before long
distance transportation (€/MWh):
Road transport Waterway transport
 Roadside price (logging residues) 3.5 3.5p ( gg g )
 Chipping 3.5 3.5
 Road transport, 30 km 2.2
 Piling and storing 0.3

19. Results and discussion:
1. Demonstrations
1 Alternative chipping systems (roadside chipping and terminal chipping)1. Alternative chipping systems (roadside chipping and terminal chipping)
• Answer: Both systems are workable, but…
• Now we know that buffer storage must be good enough when transporting
big loads. Roadside chipping was cheaper in practice anyway.
2. Productivity of loading methods
• Answer: There are productivity differences according to the scoop size andp y g p
machine power
• Now we know that scoop size can be as big as possible when loading light
material like forest chips. Other methods need to be studied too.material like forest chips. Other methods need to be studied too.
3. Energy density of chip truck and barge loads
• Answer: There are density differences between trucks and barges
N k th t d it (MWh/ 3) f b l d 25% b tt• Now we know that energy density (MWh/m3) of barge load was 25% better
than trucks
• That’s mainly because of large load size compressing the forest chips
l d it lfload itself.

20. Results and Discussion:
2 a Simulations (Karttunen et al)2.a. Simulations (Karttunen et. al)
The most efficient logistics was NO: A2a3
(1.71€/MWh, 179km):
-1. Barge logistics: Small tug-boat Tapio+Eur IIa
bbarge
-2. Trasport logistics: fixed barge
-3. Harbour logistics: loading and unloading by belt
conveyor system shift independently (own grewconveyor system shift-independently (own grew
managed the loadings)

21. Results and Discussion:
Waterway vs. road transport
The waterway concepts were found to be more cost competive than road supply
16,0
The waterway concepts were found to be more cost-competive than road supply
chain after distances up to 100-150 km
8 0
10,0
12,0
14,0
osts,€/MWh
Chip truck 3,000 hours, load: 34 tons
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
supplychainco
p , ,
Chip truck 4,000 hours, load: 34 tons
Big tug-boat, load: 1,800 tons, harbour shift
independent
Small tug-boat, load: 1,200 tons, harbour shift
independent
0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Transport distance, km
depe de
Road cost, €/MWh Waterway cost, €/MWh
Roadside price 3,5 3,5
Chipping 3,5 3,5
Road transport, 30 km – 2,2
Piling and storing – 0 3Piling and storing 0,3
Loading+unloading (in harbours) – 0,3–0,6
Long distance transport
100 km 3,5–3,8 0,9–2,0
250 km 6,8–7,4 1,8–3,6

22. Results and Discussion:
What over- and underestimations were
in study compared to current information?
Cost influence:
1. Trasportation fuel prices has growing dramatically after study (~50%)
- Truck cost structure 20%
T b t t t t 15%
Cos ue ce
- Tug-boat cost structure 15%
2. Some terminal investments 10%
3. Possibility to get loadings more efficient -10%
4. Sudden breakdowns and accidents were not included 5%
5. Two way transportation (barge could get back hauling vs. truck) -20%
6 No need for transport in summer season (except Biorefinery) 15%6. No need for transport in summer season (except. Biorefinery) 15%
7. No need for biorefinery (but more will be used in power plants) +/-
8. Small tug-boat may need more crew or support vessel 10%
9. Annual operation times
- Truck (3000-4000 h are too much) 15%
- Tug-boat (9 months is too much or ice-breaking needed) 10%g ( g )
Total cost influence : Barge: +35%, Truck: +35%

23. Results and Discussion:
3 50
4.00
2.b.Simulation (Korpinen et. al 2010)
2.50
3.00
3.50
et,€/MWh
Satamatoiminnot
Proomukustannus
Harbour logistics
Barge cost
1.00
1.50
2.00
Kustannukse
Aluksen odotus
Aluksen käyttö
Tug-boat, idle time
Tug-boat, busy
time
-
0.50
P151 P152 P161 P162 P281 P282 P351 P352 P361 P362 P451 P452 P461 P462
The most efficient logistics was NO: P352 (2 €/MWh, 290 km):
-1. Barge logistics: Small tug-boat Tapio+Eur IIa barge
Hiltunen 2010,
Corrected by Korpinen 2012
g g g p g
-2. Trasport logistics: interchangeable barge (1)
-3. Harbour logistics: loading and unloading belt conveyor system shift-independent
with own crew
..…….But the cost of P152 was exactly the same with fixed barge logistics…………

24. Results and Discussion:
Future visions of biomass waterway logisticsFuture visions of biomass waterway logistics
Large-barge models could
be developed (7100 m3 ):
Big bulk vessels
can be used forbe developed (7100 m3 ): can be used for
sea logistics:
Casen 2007
Intermodal containers
could be used:
L di d t i l
Tug-boat/Vessel could be
developed :
Föhr 2012
Loading and terminal
methods could
be developd:
Ultralight bioship NK Consult

25. Conclusion
− We found that waterway transport by barge can be cost-competitive
d t t k t t ft 100 k di tcompared to truck transport after 100 km distances
− Still many ways to improve the cost-efficiency of waterway supply chain
− Many assumptions and restrictions in the studyy p y
-> More study and empirical tests are needed…
− Are Waterways a future backbone of feedstock supply?− Are Waterways – a future backbone of feedstock supply?
− Long-distance transportation (>100 km) will be needed for biomass logistics by 2020
− Waterway transportation of forest chips could be increased, if:
− 1. There had more heavy user sites next to waterways with harbour facilities
− The use of forest chips would be year-round, such as biorefineries
− 2. There had private and public investments to the whole supply chain with2. There had private and public investments to the whole supply chain with
satellite terminals and waterway systems
− 3. There had enough entrepreneurs to the whole supply chain
− Waterway supply chain can be developed to be one promising option for biomass
logistics!

26. Thank you for your attention Joensuu !
More information: kalle.karttunen@lut.fi