Evolution and Innovation: An Inside Look at One OEM s Approach to the Biomass Supply Chain

Transcription

1 Leading The Way Evolution and Innovation: An Inside Look at One OEM s Approach to the Biomass Supply Chain World congress on Industrial Biotechnology July 19-22, 2015 Montreal, Canada

2 Complexity Reduction and Simplification Before the first manned space flight, NASA developed a ball point pen that could write in weightlessness. The development costs were several million dollars... The USSR cosmonauts used pencils... The original Fisher Astronaut Pen AG7 from the 1960s....how did the USSR (Soviet Union) solve the problem?

3 Who is AGCO?

4 Feeding the Steel Cow Steel Cow Food

5 AGCO Biomass A History Started approximately 5 years ago First OEM to have a department dedicated to cellulosic biomass Significant R&D efforts Developed a line of equipment based upon existing lines Started many industry and university partnerships Participated in USDOE programs

6 Evolution of the Biomass Supply Chain AGCO s approach has evolved along 2 parallel paths Procedure Equipment New Training Methods Upgrade Existing Equipment Onsite Maintenance, Service & Parts New Configurations Data Management Systems The Future

7 The Early Projects Each Need ~350,000 Dry Tons of Input How much equipment will the project need? For maximum efficiency and reliability each baling team needs 1 Shredder ½ of Bale Collection Wagon A project that needs 350,000 dry tons of input per year will need 50 balers 50 Shredders 35 Collections Systems 140 Tractors

8 3 Challenges for the OEM Planning for the production of thousands of pieces of equipment that represent new business; Potential new manufacturing facilities Hiring and training of hundreds of new workers How quick will we need to respond? Development of new business models Right now there are three models and all are thought to be the best New demands on our model; Can our dealer system work? Where will we get all the service technicians needed? Research and Development Should involve close collaboration between technology and OEM s Hopefully will involve use of existing infrastructure Where should our focus lie? To lower costs is a given!

9 The OEM s Dilemma How do we get there from here? 3 Projects Current NA Market 110 AGCO LSB s units for industry in NA AGCO 876 units = 58% MS 1B Gallons from Ag Waste 4,000 Baler Market Total ~2,300 units growth for AGCO

10 C Chaotic 1. No Master Plan 2. No Winning Strategy 3. No Standards 4. Reactive management A D B E

11 Responsive 1. Generate Master Plan 2. Establish standards 3. Create Operations Criteria 4. Communicate Plan Defined 1. KPI s Identified 2. Develop Methodology for Measurement 3. Supporting Framework Developed 4. Generate Training Materials A B C D E Proactive 1. Root Causal Issues Analyzed/Communicated 2. Develop Performance Incentives 3. Improvement Feedback Loops 4. Integrated Information Systems Predictive 1. Complete Cultural Alignment 2. People, Process and Technology Harmony 3. Top Down In Tune with Bottom Up 4. Incentivized Operation

12 Historical Supply Chain Bale Density 12 Average Bale Density (lb/cuft) The increase in density from 9.40 lbs/cu-ft 2010 to lbs/cu-ft in 2014 means handling 116,000 fewer bales Year

13 Working in Purpose Grown Crops Miscanthus Harvest Demonstration in Illinois Enhancing existing equipment lines Assumptions Hours in Field Fuel/hour Tons /Hour Miscanthus SPWR w/ Razor Bar Head and Biomass Auger Acre Field Operator 5.9 dt/ac density Trator and Baler 2170 XD Operator Field Edge (Stinger) Total Tons = 345 Operator Total Bales 524 Tarping of Stack 1 15MM Btus/Dry Ton Gallon of Diesel per Ton 0.47 One Day in the Field Average Bale Weight = 1,380 lbs Bale density = moisture Ash <6% Moisture as collected 8.11%

14 Production Cost Comparison Boundary: Bale dropped in field Cost Comparision of Multi-pass and Single-pass Harvesting Equipment Bale Production Cost ($/ton) $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $22.04/ton Based on 30% combine capacity loss. $12.48/ton Machine Combine Baler Windrower Single pass costs reduce to $12.84 per ton if 20% capacity reduction is achieved. $0.0 Method Multi-pass Single-pass

15

16 What are we doing for the future? Grasses and canes like the energy cane call for new types of equipment; our work in this area has show that: I. That each project will have both i. Just in time delivery ii. And baled material for longer term storage Currently these options are most likely a I. forage chopper II. Then a swather/windrower followed by a baler We are in development on a single machine that will I. Chop the material into large or small billets and blow into the back of a wagon II. Condition and windrow the material for quick drying and suitable for baling III. ~½ the cost of a forage harvester We have also tested a proto-type of harvester for miscanthus capable of harvesting, conditioning and windrowing up to 300 dry tons per hour. Either of these machines are suitable but not linited to the following: energy cane; the various sorghums; miscanthus; switchgrass; or arundo donax.

17 What does the future hold? We are working on the following: In ag residue collection: o Taking steps out of the process o Single pass variable rate chopping head o Self propelled chopper balers o Higher densities w/ greater throughputs More efficiency and reliability Better management systems Sensing devices?????????????

18 The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. Henry Ford, 1925

19 Contact Glenn Farris Segment Strategy Manager, North America Biomass & Industrials AGCO Corporation 4206 River Green Parkway Duluth, GA