Skip to main content
Log in

Rail vs truck transport of biomass

  • Session 1A Feedstock Supply and Logistics
  • Published:
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzes the economics of transshipping biomass from truck to train in a North American setting. Transshipment will only be economic when the cost per unit distance of a second transportation mode is less than the original mode. There is an optimum number of transshipment terminals which is related to biomass yield. Transshipment incurs incremental fixed costs, and hence there is a minimum shipping distance for rail transport above which lower costs/km offset the incremental fixed costs. For transport by dedicated unit train with an optimum number of terminals, the minimum economic rail shipping distance for straw is 170 km, and for boreal forest harvest residue wood chips is 145 km. The minimum economic shipping distance for straw exceeds the biomass draw distance for economically sized centrally located power plants, and hence the prospects for rail transport are limited to cases in which traffic congestion from truck transport would otherwise preclude project development. Ideally, wood chip transport costs would be lowered by rail transshipment for an economically sized centrally located power plant, but in a specific case in Alberta, Canada, the layout of existing rail lines precludes a centrally located plant supplied by rail, whereas a more versatile road system enables it by truck. Hence for wood chips as well as straw the economic incentive for rail transport to centrally located processing plants is limited. Rail transshipment may still be preferred in cases in which road congestion precludes truck delivery, for example as result of community objections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kumar, A., Cameron, J., and Flynn, P. (2003), Biomass Bioener. 24, 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkins, B. (1997), Biomass Bioener. 13(1/2), 1–9.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Dornburg, V., and Faaij, A. (2001), Biomass Bioener., 21, 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar, A., Cameron, J., and Flynn, P. (2004), App. Biochem. Biotechnol, 113, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar, A. and Flynn, P. Fuel Processing Technol. in press.

  6. Borjesson, P., and Gustavsson, L. (1996), Energy 21, 747–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar, A., Cameron, J., and Flynn, P. (2005), Bioresource Technol., 96, 819–829.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson, C. (2004), Personal communication, Canadian National Railway, Edmonton, Canada.

  9. Simmons, R. (2004), Personal communication, Agricore United, Winnipeg, Canada.

  10. Cuchet, E., Roux, P., and Spinelli, R. (2004), Biomass Bioener., 27, 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartman, M. (1999), Agdex, 519–525, Alberta Agriculture, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laver, C. (2004), Personal communication, Trinity Rail, Huntsville, Canada.

  13. Nicholson, H. (2004), Personal communication, National Steel Car Limited, Canada.

  14. O'Brian, M. (2004), Personal communication, Cargill Limited, Edmonton, Canada.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter C. Flynn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahmudi, H., Flynn, P.C. Rail vs truck transport of biomass. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129, 88–103 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:129:1:88

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:129:1:88

Index Entries

Navigation