Research Article
Economic Analysis of Biomass Supply Chains: A Case Study of Four Competing Bioenergy Power Plants in Northwestern Ontario
Table 7
Per unit profit ($·ODt−1) for each FMU from supplying biomass in different scenarios of profit maximization model.
| | Scenario | Per unit profit ($·ODt−1) for each FMU | | BS | CR | DM | DR | ER | KE | LS | LN | LH | SA | SR | WA | WJ |
| | BASE | 0.73 | 0.21 | 0.44 | 3.67 | 1.98 | −1.01 | 3.61 | −0.40 | 0.80 | 4.47 | 0.10 | 3.94 | 3.05 | | INTC | −0.74 | −0.94 | 0.28 | 2.66 | 0.56 | −2.00 | 2.17 | −2.71 | −0.58 | −0.21 | −1.85 | −0.30 | −1.32 | | IRTB1 | 7.23 | 0.21 | 6.33 | 3.67 | 2.03 | −1.01 | 3.61 | 6.10 | 7.31 | 4.47 | 6.60 | 3.94 | 3.05 | | IRTB2 | 13.73 | 0.21 | 12.22 | 3.67 | 2.10 | −1.01 | 3.61 | 12.60 | 13.81 | 4.47 | 13.10 | 3.94 | 3.05 | | IRFF1 | 0.73 | 5.63 | 0.45 | 3.67 | 1.98 | 4.15 | 3.61 | −0.40 | 0.80 | 4.48 | 0.10 | 4.19 | 3.87 | | IRFF2 | 0.73 | 11.05 | 0.45 | 3.67 | 1.98 | 9.30 | 3.61 | −0.40 | 0.80 | 4.50 | 0.10 | 4.44 | 4.68 | | IRTF1 | 7.23 | 5.63 | 6.33 | 3.67 | 2.03 | 4.15 | 3.61 | 6.10 | 7.30 | 4.48 | 6.60 | 4.19 | 3.87 | | IRTF2 | 13.73 | 11.05 | 12.23 | 3.67 | 2.09 | 9.30 | 3.61 | 12.60 | 13.80 | 4.50 | 13.10 | 4.44 | 4.68 |
|
|
Note: BS: Black Sturgeon Forest; CR: Crossroute Forest; DM: Dog River-Matawin Forest; DR: Dryden Forest; ER: English River Forest; KE: Kenora Forest; LS: Lac Seul Forest; LN: Lake Nipigon Forest; LH: Lakehead Forest; SA: Sapawe Forest; SR: Spruce River Forest; WA: Wabigoon Forest; WJ: Whiskey Jack Forest.
|
