Importance of capital cost reduction of chippers and their required productivity

Published Date
August 2014, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 361–368

Original Article

First Online: 

20 November 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10310-013-0426-x

Cite this article as: 

Yoshida, M. & Sakai, H. J For Res (2014) 19: 361. doi:10.1007/s10310-013-0426-x

Author 

• Mika YoshidaEmail author
• Hideo Sakai

Abstract 

The productivity and chipping cost of a low-investment small mobile chipper were investigated. The effect of capital cost on chipping cost reduction was analyzed by changing the service life of the chipper when assuming a target operational chipping cost set at 250 yen m−3. Productivity of the investigated chipper was found to be at 23.7 m3 h−1 in chip volume with fuel consumption at 14.6 L h−1. The results showed that the chipping cost of the investigated chipper was lower than that of a higher priced and more productive grinder. Neither chipper nor grinder, however, could achieve the assumed target cost of 250 yen m−3even if their service lives were extended. It was necessary to withstand the initial grapple loader and the labor costs or raise the grinder’s productivity to 33 m3 h−1 in order to reach a comparable operational cost target with that of the investigated chipper. Similarly, the grinder would have to reduce its capital cost and fuel consumption to maintain the chipping cost of 250 yen m−3 ifproductivity could not be improved. Net chipping cost of the investigated chipper was relatively small compared to that of the tub grinder, especially under a shorter service lifespan. The investigation shows that it is feasible for small-scale forestry to introduce a low-investment mobile chipper because it does not require a large amount of material and has a low chipping cost. Moreover, lowering the capital cost or the price of chippers is a more realistic cost savings in the long term.

References 

1. Asikainen A, Pulkkinen P (1998) Comminution of logging residues with Evolution 910 chipper, MOHA chipper truck, and Morbark 1200 tub grinder. J For Eng 9:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Asikainen A, Björheden R, Nousiainen I (2002) Cost of wood energy. In: Richardson J, Björheden R, Hakkila P, Lowe AT, Smith CT (eds) Bioenergy from Sustainable Forestry, Guiding Principles and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer, Canada, pp 125–157
3. Forestry Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan (2012) Manual for efficient utilization of high productive forestry machineries. Tokyo (in Japanese)
4. Harril H, Han HS (2010) Application of hook-lift trucks in centralized logging slash grinding operations. Biofuels 1:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Helle S, Falster H, Gamborg C, Gundersen P, Hansen L, Heding N, Jakobsen HH, Kofman P, Nikolaisen L, Thomsen IM (2002) Wood for Energy Production, Technology-Environment-Economy, Second revised edition. COFORD, Dublin
6. Kohata Y, Takemoto S, Katsuya T (2003) Case study of log and logging residues chipping by two types of movable chipper. North For Jpn 55(9):1–5 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
7. Miyata ES (1980) Determining fixed and operating costs of logging equipment. General Technical Report NC-55. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station
8. Mokuzaikatsuyoujiten-Hensyukai (1994) Dictionary of wood utilization. Sangyou-Chousakai-Jiten-shuppan-center, Tokyo (in Japanese)
9. Moriguchi K, Suzuki Y, Gotou J, Inatsuki H, Yamaguchi T, Shiraishi Y, Ohara T (2004) Cost of comminution and transportation in the case of using logging residue as woody biofuel. J Jpn For Soc 86:121–128Google Scholar
10. Röser D, Sikanen L, Asikainen A, Parikka H, Väätäinen K (2011) Productivity and cost of mechanized energy wood harvesting in Northern Scotland. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4570–4580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Röser D, Mola-Yudego B, Prinz R, Emer B, Sikanen L (2012) Chipping operations and efficiency in different operational environments. Silva Fenn 46:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Sasaki S (2006) How much are we able to supply fuelwood chips? J For Mech Soc 630:5–12 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
13. Spinelli R, Hartsough B (2001) A survey of Italian chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy 21:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Stampfer K, Kanzian (2006) Current state and development possibilities of wood chip supply chains in Austria. Croatian J For Eng 27:135–145
15. The Board for Studying the Highly Materialization in Forest Utilization Area (2011) A study on the cost of repair and maintenance and the hire rate for forestry machines equipped with highly efficient performances. J For Mech Soc 691:19–28
16. Tokai-Forest (2011) The introduction of a mobile wood-chipper for making efficient use of thinned logs and other residual woods in forest-lands. J For Mech Soc 695:41–44 (in Japanese)
17. Tolosana E, Laina R, Martínez-Ferrari R, Ambrosio Y (2011) Recovering of forest biomass from Spanish hybrid poplar plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):2570–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Werhahn-Mees W, Palosuo T, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Röser D, Lindner M (2011) Sustainability impact assessment of increasing resource use intensity in forest bioenergy production chains. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 3:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Yamamoto H (2005) Development of modified biomass balance tables and regional bioenergy supply potential in Japan. Socio-economic Research Center Report; Y04017 (in Japanese with English summary)
20. Yoshioka T, Aruga K, Sakai H, Kobayashi H, Nitami T (2002) Cost, energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) effectiveness of a harvesting and transporting system for residual forest biomass. J For Res 7:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Yoshioka T, Sakurai R, Aruga K, Nitami T, Sakai H, Kobayashi H (2006) Comminution of logging residues with a tub grinder: calculation of productivity and procurement cost of wood chips. Croatian J For Eng 27:103–114Google Scholar
22. Young TM, Ostermeier DM (1991) The economic availability of woody biomass for the Southeastern United States. Bioresour Technol 37:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-013-0426-x