Stimulating Market Development for California’s “Urbanwood” Resources
description
Transcript of Stimulating Market Development for California’s “Urbanwood” Resources
Stimulating Market Development for California’s “Urbanwood”
ResourcesRichard P. Thompson, ProfessorCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis ObispoDirector Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute
John R. Shelly, Extension SpecialistUniversity of California Forest Products Laboratory
Urban Utilization Problems• Greenwaste flows have drastically limited
landfill capacity in California.• Solidwood represents the highest value
potential in these flows but utilization is low because an efficient market has yet to form.
Purpose To help the market for urban solidwood,
“urbanwood”, emerge in California.
ObjectivesPhase I - Primary Supply• Estimate urban sawlog supply potential• Evaluate economic viability of urban mills &
assist with technical informationPhase II - Secondary Manufacturers & the Market• Evaluate methods to describe urban wood raw
material characteristics (i.e. “grades”)• Evaluate the Internet to facilitate emergence of
urban wood markets– Develop directory of raw material suppliers and
secondary manufacturers
Challenges• Log Supply Potential
– Uncertain volume in urban waste stream– Poorly defined raw material quality
specifications • High log manufacturing costs and weak
capital funding• Deficit of log processing knowledge• Secondary wood manufacturer’s demands?• Industry infrastructure lacking
Estimating Urbanwood Availability in California
NEOS 1994 110 million BF > 12-inch Diam.
Larson 1995 20 > 12-inch Diam.
Arborist 1999 60 > 12-inch Diam.
Landfill 1999 4 6
>12-in. D, 4-ft L>12-in. D, < 4-ft
Challenges• Log Supply Potential
– Uncertain volume in urban waste stream– Poorly defined raw material quality
specifications • High log manufacturing costs and weak
capital funding• Deficit of log processing knowledge• Secondary wood manufacturer’s demands?• Industry infrastructure lacking
150 MBF-RG Cost Breakdown
Labor
Site Rental
Insurance Misc.
Mainten.
Deprec.
Debt
Utilities
Transp.
150 MBF-KD Cost Breakdown
Misc.
DryingDeprec.
Site Rental
Insurance
Mainten.
DebtLabor
Utilities
Transp.
220 MBF-KD Cost Breakdown
Misc.
DryingDeprec.
Site RentalInsurance
Mainten.
Debt
Labor
Utilities
Transp.
Wholesale Price Range vs. Cost Estimates per BF
$0.46$0.53
$1.10
$0.70$0.77
$1.30
$0.00$0.20$0.40$0.60$0.80$1.00$1.20$1.40$1.60$1.80$2.00
150 - RG 150 - KD 220 - KD
LOW COST
HIGH COST
HIGH COST
LOW LOW COSTCOST
High Value
Low ValueHIGH
COSTLOW COST
After-tax Profit Scenarios
Value
220-KD
150-RD150-KD
low medium highlow medium high
150 - RG150 - KD
220 - KD-$10.0
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
Species Quality
Best Case -Retail prices,
low costs
Worst Case -Wholesale
prices, high cost
Challenges• Log Supply Potential
– Uncertain volume in urban waste stream– Poorly defined raw material quality specifications
• High log manufacturing costs and weak capital funding
• Deficit of log processing knowledge• Secondary wood manufacturer’s demands?• Industry infrastructure lacking
• Inappropriate log storage (time and log deterioration)• High handling costs – no uniformity in log size, downtime
problems (equip. maintenance, metal scanning)• Wasteful sawing practices (also saw for value or volume?)• Drying knowledge is limited for many species
Challenges• Log Supply Potential
– Uncertain volume in urban waste stream– Poorly defined raw material quality specifications
• High log manufacturing costs and weak capital funding
• Deficit of log processing knowledge• Secondary wood manufacturer’s demands?• Industry infrastructure lacking
Promoting niche markets is the current focus of our project.
“Urbanwood” Demand• Highly non-concentrated secondary
manufactured products lines :– rough, green lumber of sub-grade dimensions– countless niche “figure wood” manufacturers (e.g., burl
products, blanks, exotics with unique figure and color)– woodworking guilds and individual hobbyists
• Potential substitutes for some traditional, non-commodity uses
• Unrealized residue utilization opportunities (e.g., compost, pet bedding)
High Value Potential• Dense Hardwoods
– Walnut– Ash– Locust– Acacia– Elm– Sycamore– Orchard Trees
• CA Dense Hardwoods– Madrone– Tanoak– Eucalyptus spp.– CA Black Walnut (Claro)– CA Laurel
• Unique Softwoods– Monterey Cypress– Monterey Pine– Redwood
Challenges• Log Supply Potential
– Uncertain volume in urban waste stream– Poorly defined raw material quality specifications
• High log manufacturing costs and weak capital funding
• Deficit of log processing knowledge• Secondary wood manufacturer’s demands?• Industry infrastructure lacking
Needs for “Urbanwoods” Market Emergence
• Processing and business education -- access to technical information and assistance
• Capital funding (e.g., initial govt. loan “supports”)
• Niche marketing assistance (e.g., industry assoc.)
• Market and distribution infrastructure– Identifying suppliers and buyers (Internet
directories)– Brokering mechanisms (brokers, Internet
transactions, cooperatives, etc.)– Raw material grading uncertainties
The Power of the Internet
• Disseminate technical & market information• Finding equipment and materials
• Connecting buyers and sellers
Related Websites www.woodweb.com
“This old woodpile” www.californiahardwoods.com www.ecotimber.com
HFIA’s http://hawaii-forest.org/
New urbanwood resource on UFEI websitewww.ufei.org