Mechanised harvesting of short-rotation coppices

Stefan P.P. Vanbeveren, Raffaele Spinelli, Mark Eisenbies, Janine Schweier, Blas Mola-Yudego, Natascia Magagnotti, Mauricio Acuna, Ioannis Dimitriou and Reinhart Ceulemans

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, vol. 76, issue C, 90-104

Abstract: Short-rotation coppice (SRC) is an important source of woody biomass for bioenergy. Despite the research carried out on several aspects of SRC production, many uncertainties create barriers to farmers establishing SRC plantations. One of the key economic sources of uncertainty is harvesting methods and costs; more specifically, the performance of contemporary machine methods is reviewed. We collected data from 25 literature references, describing 166 field trials. Three harvesting systems predominate: 127 used single pass cut-and-chip harvesters, 16 used double pass cut-and-store harvesters, 22 used the cut-and-bale harvester, and one study used a cut-and-billet harvester. Mean effective material capacity (EMC) was 30Mg fresh weight h-1 (cut-and-chip technique), 19Mg fresh weight h-1 (cut-and-store technique) and 14Mg fresh weight h-1 (cut-and-bale technique). However, this comparison does not consider engine power, which varies with harvesting technique; cut-and-chip harvesters are by far the most powerful (>200kW). When limiting harvesters to a maximum engine power of 200kW, cut-and-chip harvesters achieved the lowest EMC (5Mg fresh weight h-1), but they also perform a higher degree of material processing (cutting and chipping) than cut-and-store harvesters (only cutting) or than the cut-and-bale harvester (cutting and baling). The trend in commercial machinery is towards increased engine power for cut-and-chip and cut-and-store harvesters. No trends in EMC were documented for the recently developed cut-and-bale harvesting technique, which is presently produced in one version only. Field stocking (5–157Mg fresh weight ha-1 in the reviewed studies) has a significant effect on harvester EMC. Lower field stocking can constrain the maximum EMC achieved by the machine given that harvesting speed can only be increased to a point. While the reviewed studies did not contain sufficient harvesting cost data for a thorough analysis, harvesting costs ranged between 6 and 99 € Mg-1 fresh weight.

Keywords: Baling; Chipping; Costs; Cut; Effective machine capacity; Effective field capacity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117302782
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:76:y:2017:i:c:p:90-104

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 600126/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.059

Access Statistics for this article

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is currently edited by L. Kazmerski

More articles in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().