Pergamon

Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 13. Nos l/2. pp. l-9, 1997 I{1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed III &eat Britain 096lm9534/97 $17.00 + 0.00 PII: SO961-9534(97)00085-2

A COMMENT ON THE OPTIMAL SIZING OF A BIOMASS UTILIZATION FACILITY UNDER CONSTANT AND VARIABLE COST SCALING
B. Biological and Agricultural Engineering

M. JENKINS
University of California, Davis, CA 95616,

Department, U.S.A.

(Received 19 October 1995; accepted 29 August 1996) Abstract-Two solutions are obtained for the optimal size of a biomass utilization facility subject to an economy of scale in capital and non-fuel operating costs. The conventional assumption of constant-scaling parameter over all capacities leads to a larger optimum than if the scaling factor is increased asymptotically towards I with increasing capacity to reflect technical and economic constraints or risks. Lack of appropriate scaling data for larger sizes makes the question of general optimization for biomass facilities uncertain, and conclusions regarding development policies based on assumptions of constant cost scaling should be carefully tested. c 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords-Biomass facilities; power plants; scaling; variable scaling; sensitivity analysis costs; economics; optimization; scaling factor; constant

1. NOMENCLATURE

Y constant coefficient = Y/X for rectangular fuel supply region (-) capital cost ($) constant coefficient of scaling equation unit annual capital cost per unit output (S kWh_ ) base capital cost (S) unit fuel production cost ($ t- ) unit fuel transportation cost ($ t- km- ) total transportation distance for Q (km ye ) constant coefficient of scaling equation coefficient of scaling equation delivered fuel cost per unit output ($ kWh_ ) capital recovery factor (-) fuel acquisition cost (S t- ) implied functional relationship fuel heating value (MJ t- ) facility operating hours per year (h y - ) discount rate (y- ) unit capital cost ($ kW_ ) =K+C base unit capital cost ($ kW_ ) economic life (y) plant capacity (kW) = X/l = Y/1 (-) base plant capacity (kW) optimum facility capacity (kW) number of truckloads in region .x~ (-) output production cost ($ kWh_ ) total facility fuel demand (t y ) regional fuel distribution (t km- y- ) unit non-fuel operating cost (S kWh_ ) base unit non-fuel operating cost ($ kWh_ ) scale factor (-) average fuel transportation cost (S t- ) truck payload (t) half-width of regional fuel supply area (km) ., I ; : q r

width of fractional fuel supply area (km) half-height of regional fuel supply area (km) height of fractional fuel supply area (km) dummy variable (-) scaling coefficient (-) scaling coefficient (-) scaling coefficient (-) scaling coefficient (-) facility efficiency (-) tortuosity factor (-)

2. INTRODUCTION

A biomass facility accepting fuel from a surrounding region may be shown to have an optimum size when the assumption of a positive economy of scale (decreasing cost with increasing size) in capital and non-fuel operating costs is combined with an increasing delivered fuel cost as the facility size increases. 4 The combination of plant expenses and fuel costs under these assumptions leads to a minimum in the computed price or cost of output product (e.g. energy). The economy of scale in capital cost is classically expressed as

where C ($) is the installed capital cost of the facility of capacity M (kW), C, ($) is the

B. M. JENKINS

installed capital cost of a so-called base size plant of capacity M, (kW), and s is the dimensionless scale factor (refer to Nomenclature). The capacity units here are arbitrarily expressed in units of power, but they may be expressed in any convenient unit without loss of generality. On a per unit basis, taking K = C/M as the unit installed capital cost ($/kW), eqn (1) takes the form:
K -= K, -M Am ( M,, > (2)

In nearly all cases, the scaling parameter, S, is taken as constant over all ranges of facility capacity. In this case, the optimization procedure generally concludes, as demonstrated later, that the optimal capacity is quite large, and that the smaller sizes of existing biomass utilization facilities, particularly power plants, are sub-optimized or will be under intensive energy crop production systems. However, the output pricing functions tend to be quite flat with respect to facility scale beyond some small capacity, leading to insensitivity in the price around the optimum.4 h This approach has recently been revisited7 with similar conclusions as previous optimization investigations regarding the size at which the facility is optimized. Although the form of the economy of scale function used is slightly different (K = C + D/ME), it is equivalent to eqn (2) with K=K , -C and E=s-I. The scaling parameter s is again assumed to be constant. This inherent assumption of constant s leads to certain interesting behavior in the sizing relationship between MOP! and s, where Mop, is the optimum capacity (kW) of the facility. The common perception of the constant value of S, 0.6 2 s < 0.8, resulting from inspection of cost information from a limited number of existing small facilities ( I 50 MW for biomass-fueled power plants) and historical data from the chemical process industry, can be shown to be responsible for the large sizes projected for the optimal capacity under intensive energy crop production, A review* of power plant capitalcost scaling for existing nuclear and coal-fired facilities at larger capacities (100 I M I 1400 MW) finds values for s (constant) which are of the order of 0.93-0.94, or 1 for large nuclear units. As seen from eqn (1) or (2), values of s approaching 1 yield little economy of scale, and at 1 there is no economy of scale (K = K,, for all sizes). Because very large biomass facilities have

yet to be constructed and operated, the question of how cost should scale with size remains highly uncertain, The use of favorable economies of scale implied by lower values of s appears optimistic in the face of existing data from coal and nuclear plants. However, as the later sensitivity analysis suggests, dramatic increases in fuel yield and efficiency can still lead to large optimal capacities. The assumption of constant s for optimizing the size of a biomass facility is, therefore, questionable. Favorable cost scaling appears to exist, at least anecdotally, in the relatively small-scale biomass systems already built,5.7 but given the much less favorable scaling for large coal and nuclear facilities, one rational approach to the scaling question is to assume that s itself is a function of the facility capacity, M, at least within some reasonable range. Other approaches are perhaps equally valid, i.e. the validity of eqn (1) as a scaling model is not necessarily general. To evaluate the effect of an assumption that s varies as a function of facility scale (s = g(M)) as opposed to s constant for all sizes, the two general solutions are developed and compared below. 2.1. Derivation ofthe optimal capacity, M,, The solution is started on the basis of eqns (1) and (2) for the total capital cost, with the unit price of facility output (from here on regarded as energy), P ($ kWh_ formed from ) the combination of annual capital charges, C, ($ kWh_ non-fuel operating expenses, R ), ), and delivered fuel costs, F ($ kWh_ ($ kWh_ ),
P=C,.+R+F (3)

The annual capital charges are found from the total capital cost, C, the annual output production, Mh, where h is the number of hours during the year the facility operates (M is in this case the annual average capacity), and the capital recovery factor, f
f =

i(1 + i) (1 + i) - 1

with i the effective discount rate (y- and L the ) economic life of the facility. Then,

(5)

Optimal

size of a biomass

utilizatics

facility

This represents a simplified approach to the annual capital charges and effectively expresses the level annual revenue requirements for capital. The non-fuel operating costs are also assumed to scale with size, as
\-I

From Fig. 1 and eqns (7-10) the total transport distance, D (km y- to deliver the entire fuel ), supply, Q, to the facility (including round trips), is:

R,

(6)

D = r8n 1 1 (iu +,jy) , =0 , = I,

= s4nm (m

- l)(r + .r)

where R, and M, are the base values. The scaling parameter s used in eqn (6) is here assumed identical to that in eqn (5) but in general need not be. The delivered fuel cost is developed from an assumption of the prevailing geometry of the fuel supply region surrounding the facility. The facility is assumed to be centrally located, exclusive of any considerations regarding actual siting constraints. For the purposes here, a rectangular supply region is arbitrarily assumed, but the resulting transportation cost function is only mildly different from models assuming a circular supply region.h,7 ) The assumed supply region is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, with the plant assumed to be at the center. A rectangular road network is also assumed (e.g. such as might exist in a level terrain), with the fuel transport distance modified by a dimensionless tortuosity factor, r, to account for irregularities in the road network . The total annual fuel consumption, Q (t y - ) supplied to the facility, is found from the average fuel distribution, 4 (t km- y in the ), region, and the size of the region as: Q = 4qXY (7)

=rf(X+
The transportation component, delivered fuel cost is:

Y) I-

( >
;

(11)

T ($ t of the ).

T=

C,D;

= rC,(X+

Y)

(12)

with

(X+

Y)=

;($(+)

(13)

Note that for m large, T r TC,(X + Y). The total delivered fuel cost per unit input is F , F =T+C, (14)

where C, represents the production cost ($ t ) of the feedstock, which may or may not be dependent on the distance of the production site from the facility. Here it is simply assumed to be constant throughout the region 4XY. Expressed per unit of facility output, the delivered cost component. F, of P, is

with X and Y the half lengths (km) of the sides of the rectangle. The region is further subdivided into individual geometrically similar rectangles of sides x and y (km), supplying n number of truckloads of fuel, with truck payloads of w (t), such that,

H is the heating value of the fuel (MJ tt and ), 0 is the dimensionless efficiency consistent with the value of H employed (e.g. higher or lower heating value). The total fuel requirement is dictated by the size of the facility and the length of time it operates,

(8)
Then,

-xI I 1 I , I / I -

--Y

_X=2X(?!):

=(Z)

(9)

-6

where h = Y/X. The number of sub-regions, located along each side of XY is m,

-KY,

m=;=;=

Y i\

.cLz 4nw
I

(10)

Fig. I, Schematic transportation from a surrounding rectangular utilization

grid for biomass supplied region to a central biomass facility.

B. M.

JENKINS

0.6

10

100 M (MW)

1000

10000

Fig. 2. Scaling parameter s = (y)/(z)tan- (M + /I) + 6, for various combinations of the scaling coefficients as indicated in parentheses, (G(,/?, y. 6). Reference case (0.18, - 2,2,0) shown as thicker curve.

Q= such that,

%Mh

(16)

dP M r-2 z = 0 = a,(s - 1) M, + i a,M- I2 ( > (23) yielding, I Mop,= 231 -,y)M;- L- >(24)

F = ; (g)lpiC,(l

+ @($:uL~

(17) C, and R,

Combining

c.R=($+R,)($) -

(18)

Note that because C, is taken as constant, it does not enter the optimal solution. The result expressed by eqn (24) is so far valid whether s is constant or variable, but if variable, the functional relationship between s and M can be explicitly included. For example, invoking the function s= itan- (MS+@+6 (25)

the output

cost is 5-1

P=C,.+R+F=a,

+ a2M2 + a, (19) al = h 4, + R,

as a means to change the economy of scale as scale varies, leads to an optimum found from

(20)

(21) + ; 2 Mm2 I (26)

The optimal size of the facility is found from the objective function, minimize P, given by differentiating (19) and setting equal to zero,

which is solved using an iterative or root-finding technique. Where written, s in (26) is found from (25). cr,/?,y,6 are constant coefficients used to create the desired shape for s over the range of size of interest. The behavior of eqn (25) for various combinations of the coefficients is

Optimal Table I. Assumptions for the reference K M0 t

size of a biomass case

utilizatics

facility

Installed cost ($ kW- ) Base capacity (kW) Discount rate (y- ) Economic life (y) Capital recovery factor (y ) Availability (%) Hours of operation (h y- ) Base operating cost ($ kWh ) Fuel heating value (MJ t- ) Plant efficiency (+) Tortuosity factor (--) Unit transportation cost ($ t km- ) Fuel production cost ($ t- ) Fuel density (t km- y- ) h = r/x (-) Truck payload (t) Number of truckloads (--) Scale parameter Scale parameter Scale parameter Scale parameter Constant of equation Constant of equation Constant of equation

f
h RI H rl 7 C, C, ;f If n ; 7 6 aI a, ai

2000 2s 000 0.06 20 0.0872 75 6575 0.02 20 000 0.25 I 0.1 30 1000 1 20 I 0.18 -2 2 0 0.0465 4.9537 x 10mh 0.0216

illustrated in Fig. 2. As shown, s can be made to increase, decrease or remain constant with increasing A4 depending on the coefficient values. The optimal solution for s = constant (c( = 0) can be considered a special case of eqn (26). Other functions than (25) may. with appropriate modification of eqn (26) be selected to force different behavior. 2.2. Reference solution As an example of the magnitudes of the optimum size obtained under the two different assumptions, s = constant and s variable, a solution is obtained for the reference values of the model parameters listed in Table 1. The solution values are shown in Table 2. The assumption that s is a function of M (s is variable) yields a unique optimal solution at s = 0.9179. In solving the reference case for s = constant, the value of s used is that found at the optimal solution to the reference case for variable s, that is, s = 0.9179 = constant. The optimal capacities, MOP,,differ between the two cases because of the influence of s in eqns (24) and (26). With s variable according to eqn (25), the optimal capacity given by (26) is 305 MW, fairly large compared with existing power plants, but only one-quarter the magnitude of 1252 MW yielded by the assumption of constant s. Although the sizes are considerably different, the output cost is quite similar: $0.0622 kWh- for variable scaling, and $0.0609 kWh- for

constant scaling. The coefficients CY 0.18, = fl = -2, 7 = 2, 6 = 0 (see Fig. 2) were selected to give s in the range of 0.6-0.9 at the smaller scales (l-100 MW). The scale factor s increases with increasing M in this case, being asymptotic to 1 at large M. Such behavior might arise, for example, from increasing environmental, safety and other engineering requirements (e.g. shift in technology) with increasing scale, from increasing infrastructure requirements at large capacities (such as road and other facility development not required at smaller scales), or from the adoption of parallel conversion trains of smaller-scale units to supply total capacity as opposed to single large units. The behavior of eqn (2) for the unit capital cost, K, is shown for both constant and variable s in Fig. 3. Due to the functional form of eqn (25) with the assumed reference coefficients, the capital cost with variable s becomes much larger at very small sizes, while beyond about 20 MW the unit capital cost, K, levels off and then begins to rise at sizes above 1000 MW. This type of behavior is assumed to be characteristic of actual facilities due to increased technological and investment constraints and risks at very large scales as noted above (although risk can also be accommodated by increasing ,f K for ). constant s is monotonically decreasing over all scales. The values for K are nearly identical for the two assumptions between about 10 and 1000 MW given the reference assumptions. The impacts on the output cost components are shown in Fig. 4 for both constant and variable s. The cost curves are identified by number in the figure. Curves 1 and 2 are the facility costs, C, + R from eqn (18), for the constant and variable s solutions, respectively. Curve 5 is the total delivered fuel cost, eqn (17) which is the same for both cases. The total cost, equal to the sum of facility and fuel costs, eqn (19) is shown by curves 3 and 4 for the constant and variable s solutions, respectively. The optima are indicated by the vertical dashed lines as labeled. The penalty imposed by eqn (25) on
Table 2. Solution of the optimal capacity under variable and constant s for the reference assumptions s 305 0.0622 0.9179

Variable

MO,, (MW) P at M,,, ($ kWh_ ) s at M,,, (-_) Constant s = 0.9179

MO,, (MW) P at Map, ($ kWh_ )

1252 0.0609

B. M. JENKINS -variable s - - - -constant s

I
6000

10

100 M (MW)

1000

10000

Fig. 3. Unit capital

cost, K, under

constant

and variable

s scaling,

reference

conditions

the variable s solution forces the minimum in P to occur at a smaller capacity compared with the constant s solution. The logarithmic scale used in Fig. 4 tends to obscure the leveling in fuel cost with increasing size resulting from the square dependence of quantity on distance (as distance increases, the incremental area encompassed, and hence the fuel quantity available, varies according to the square of the distance). The shallow optima, however, are readily observed. 2.3. Sensitivity of the solution for constant s Under an assumption yields some interesting of constant s, eqn (24) behavior for M,,,, as
MopI= Mopt=305 MW
variable s

constants

MW

0.20

0.15

E $ "T

0.05

0.00 1 10 100

I
M VW

I
I

1000

10000

Fig. 4. Capital plus operating (C, + R), fuel (F), and total costs (P = C, + R + F) as a function of facility size for constant and variable s solutions with reference assumptions. Curve 1: C, + R (s= constant); curve 2: C, + R (variable s); curve 3: total cost, P (S = constant); curve 4: total cost, P (variable s); curve 5: fuel cost, F, both cases, Vertical dashed lines locate optimal capacities,

indicated by Fig. 5. For the reference assumptions (solid curve in Fig. 5) a maximum MoPl occurs at s = 0.79, with an abrupt reduction above this value and a more moderate decline below it. This functional behavior in eqn (24) is due primarily to the influence of the term (1 - s) as it approaches zero (s approaches unity) with MA + approaching unity. This behavior is consistent with the large optimal capacities obtained under the commonly employed assumption, 0.6 I s I 0.8. The individual sensitivities for all parameters of the solution, @M,,,)/(az), where z is a dummy variable representing any one of the model parameters, are listed in Table 3. The sensitivity of M,,,, to s (being the slope at each point of the curve in Fig. 5) is shown in Fig. 6 for the same conditions as Fig. 5 (solid curve again representing the reference case), indicating the high sensitivity above s = 0.8 (note the maximum slope of approximately -20 GW for the reference conditions in the vicinity of s = 0.94, in the same range of s identified for large coal and nuclear facilities noted above). With s = constant, except for the value yielding the maximum MoPt, there are two values of s producing the same optimal size (e.g. for the value of s = 0.9179, given by the variable s solution of the reference case, the assumption of s = constant = 0.9179 yields the same optimal size M,,, = 1252 MW as does an assumption s = constant = 0.4174). The sensitivity, as indicated by Fig. 6, is considerably different at each of the two values of s, however. A small error in knowing the value of s would have less impact on the value of IV,, for s = 0.4 than for s = 0.9. If the scaling factors for biomass facilities are

Optimal

size of a biomass

utilizatics

facility

0.2

0.4 s

0.6

0.6

Fig. 5. Sensitivity

of the optimal solution, M,,,, to s, for constant s solution. assumptions, dashed curve = alternate assumptions.

Solid curve = rererence

actually closer to those for coal and nuclear plants than commonly assumed, then the optimization occurs in the region of highest sensitivity to scale. The relative responses, Mop,/Mop,,rzfercnce, to relative changes in the model parameters are depicted in Fig. 7. For three parameters, the relative sensitivities are identical to those of others: f to K,, q to H, and z to C,. The relative sensitivity to h is quite similar to that for C,, except limited by the total number of hours in the ye&. Note that h = 1 yields a maximum value of Mopt, all else constant. The sensitivity to both efficiency and heating value is quite dramatic. From a physical perspective, the advantage of increasing either of these parameters is that the facility capacity can be increased without necessarily increasing the mass of fuel delivered. In the case of increased efficiency, the same mass generates greater output. In the case of increased heating value, such as might be obtained by replacing
Table 3. Sensitivities,

straw with wood, moist biomass with dry biomass, or biomass with higher rank coal (although the supply characteristics for coal are entirely different than those for biomass), the energy density of the fuel is greater, and the same mass can be used to generate greater capacity at the same efficiency. Of particular importance is the impact of facility scale on traffic loading as vehicles dispersed over a large area concentrate towards the facility. Such congestion can be alleviated by developing shuttling systems to outlying satellites, but at costs which likely increase with increasing scale. Such costs have been considered constant in this and most analyses (although here, as indicated above, they may be represented by penalizing the economy of scale). The result of this increasing transportation cost, as suggested by the relative sensitivities to C, in Fig. 7 for constant s, would be a reduction in the optimal size of the facility. for 5 = constant

(&W,,,)/(aZ),

= (l/(3 - 2s))~: - I a4= (2a,/(az4 - .Y)M;~ - 9 ; )(I = (ox/( I .5 - s))ai [a&<,+ a$ - 05= 2(f?h)(l - s)M:- \ j ( 1; , a6 = 2R,(l - .T)M;~ = (a,/( I .5 - ~))a: [a,R,, + a,] ; a, = 2( 1 - s)Mj, a, = (Jf/h)K,( I - s)M; L , = (I /( I - (2/3)s))a; I* H : a, = (20, /(aJ77 ?))( 1 - s)M; - = (l/(1 - (2/3)s))ald-rl -; a,, = (2a,/(a97 ))(l - s)M:,- m ))(l _ s)M;m) = (I/(s - 1S))a ;;(Ism>,Ci? ))(sm1; a,, = (2a,/(a,f; 1@- (11 1; a,, = (2u,,(u,fm ~ ))(l _ s)M;, I = (I/@ - l.S))a 1;5m

l ; a,, = (2&/h)(l _ s&f;5 r-b ova5- _ (3,2) (&~s _ (l,2)a,ih- I[ q;

a,5 = (2/(&))R,(l - s)M:k = (I - s)/(lS - s)&MA- ; u,~ = (2u,/~1~)(1 - s) = (l/(1.5 - s))M,,,((l - h)/(2h(l + b))) = (l/(1.5 - s))M,,,[(1/(1.5 - s))ln(Mj,:, + (l/(s - I)) - InM,] ) i indicates reference value to be inserted.

B. M. JENKINS -reference solution - - - -alternate solution

-20

l _c
0
0.2 0.4 s 0.6 0.8 1 for constant s solution. Solid curve, reference alternate assumptions. assumptions. Dashed curve,

Fig. 6. Sensitivity,

@M&/as,

The shape of the curve in Fig. 5 appears to be rather general, but the location of the maximum Mopt is not. An alternate set of assumptions listed in Table 4 yields the solution shown in Table 5. These assumptions decreases the optimum under variable s scaling to 234 MW, and to 337 MW for constant s scaling at the same s ( = 0.9127). The value of s at M,,, with variable cost scaling from eqn (26) is slightly smaller than that for the reference case (0.9127 versus 0.9179). The maximum M,,, for constant s occurs at s = 0.6, as shown in Fig. 5 (dashed curve). Figure 6 (dashed curve) also shows the lower sensitivity to s as a result of the alternate assumptions.

3. CONCLUSIONS

This analysis illustrates some of the distinctive behavior in the optimal sizing function under the assumption of a constant scaling parameter for capital and non-fuel operating costs. The use of favorable scaling parameters (0.6 I s I 0.8) apparently realized at existing small scales, can lead to large, possibly unrealistic, values for the optimum size due to the coincident maximum in the optimal capacity under an assumption of constant s. For s above 0.9, the high sensitivity of optimal capacity to s leads to large changes in M,,,, for small changes in s, and requires rather good knowledge of s in order to isolate the optimum over quite a broad range of capacities. At large capacities, some reduction in or a complete absence of economy of scale, as indicated by existing data for large coal and nuclear facilities, can be anticipated due to technical and economic constraints or risks. Under an assumption that the scaling factor is itself a function of capacity, a reduction in the optimal size of the biomass facility is demonstrated compared with one sized under constant

Table 4. Assumptions for the alternate solution (all other parameters equal to reference assumptions)
0

2 Relative z

Fig. 7. Relative sensitivities, Mop,/Mapt,rcfc~ncer relative to model parameters, z/z,~~,,.,., for constant s solution, reference assumptions. Sensitivity for fidentical to that for K,, q to H, and T to C,.

Installed cost ($ kW_ ) Base capacity (kW) Base operating cost ($ kWh- ) Fuel density (t km-* y- ) Constant of equation Constant of equation Constant of equation

K0 M0 RO 4 aI a2 aj

1200

100000
0.01 500 0.0259 7.0056 x 1O-6 0.0216

Optimal size of a biomass utilizatics facility Table 5. Optimal capacity under variable and constant s for the alternate assumptions Variable s MO,, (MW) P at M,,, ($ kWh_ ) s at M,,, (-) Constant s = 0.9127 MO,, (MW) Pat M,,, ($ kWh_ ) 337 0.0489 234 0.0490 0.9127 REFERENCES

Office of Technology Assessment. EnergJtfiom Biological Processes, Vol.lI. Technical and Encironmental Analyses, Appendix A, p. 151, USGPO. Washington, DC, 1980. B. M. Jenkins, J. F. Arthur and P. A. Eibeck, Transportation model for selecting optimum biomass utilization sites. ASAE Paper No. 823090, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Ml, 1982. Jenkins, B. M., Arthur, J. F. and Eibeck, P. A., Selecting optimum biomass utilization sites. Trans ASAE, 1983, 26, 1551-1556. B. M. Jenkins. Implications of photosynthetic efficiency and biomass yield for optimal sizing of utilization facilities. Proceedings Agroforestry Workshop. University of California, Davis, 1986. B. M. Jenkins. A sensitivity analysis on the optimal capacity of a biomass conversion system and the implications of photosynthetic efficiency and biomass yield. Agricultural Engineering Department, University of California, Davis, 1987. M. H. Nguyen and R. G. H. Prince. A simple rule for plant size optimisation in bioethanol production. Biomass and Bioenergy (in press). C. 1. Marrison, E. D. Larson. Cost versus scale for advanced plantation-based biomass energy systems in the U.S.A. and Brazil. Proc. 2nd Biomass Conf. of the Americas, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, 1995, pp. 1272-1290. C. F. Fisher, Jr., S. Paik and W. R. Schriver. Power pant economy of scale and cost trends-further analyses and review of empirical studies. ORNL/Sub-85-7685/lII, DE86 014410, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1986. Overend, R. P., The average haul distance and transportation work factors for biomass delivered to a central plant. Biomass, 1982, 2, 75-79.

scaling factor. The relative insensitivity of output cost to scale around the optimum suggests that above some small size, finding the true optimum is not especially critical in any case, and that other siting factors, such as traffic loading, local atmospheric pollution and others, may be considered more important. In essence, these factors must be included in any real optimization strategy. Determining the optimum facility size remains a site specific task. Although models such as this can be used for designing more general policies towards biomass development, the assumptions underlying such developments should be carefully tested. Scaling data at larger sizes are entirely lacking, and more thorough analyses are warranted to determine the dependence of the scaling relationships on size.