See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266527463

TECHNOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF
GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL
SCALE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FROM
BIOMASS

ARTICLE

READS

65

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira

Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
141 PUBLICATIONS 162 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira

Retrieved on: 04 November 2015
 TECHNOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES
FOR SMALL SCALE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FROM BIOMASS

Electo Silva Lora, Luiz Augusto Horta Nogueira

DME/IEM/EFEI
Av. BPS 1303, CP 50, Itajubá MG, 37500-000
Brazil

ABSTRACT

The results of technical and economical evaluation for three different systems of low
capacity (45 kWe) for electricity generation to supply isolated communities are presented:
a diesel generator and two biomass gasification system, including the microturbines option.
In the first part of the paper the model is evaluated for a wide range of the main parameters
and a sensitivity analysis is carried out. Load factor resulted the more influential factor. In
the second part some results are shown specifically for the Brazilian conditions.

Keywords: Technoeconomic evaluation, gasification, biomass, electricity generation.

INTRODUCTION

Although Brazilian urban regions are almost all electrified, in the countryside more than a
million isolated communities are not supplied by electricity. Trying to tackle this situation
the Ministry of Mines and Energy is carrying out an electrification program for these
communities using renewable energy, mainly through photovoltaics panels. It is well
known that one of the most important energy resource in Brazil is biomass, mainly as agro-
forest residues, energy crops and garbage, but up to now high cost and uncertainty about
feasibility of available technologies are obstacles to introduce low capacity biomass energy
systems in this context. However, recent advances in energy crops productivity and
biomass conversion technologies have renewed the interest on the biomass alternative.

Gas microturbines presenting low capital cost and easy operation have good perspectives
for low scale decentralized electricity generation. Gas microturbines from 25 to 100 kW
capacity have been appeared in the market since 1997 and were initially built from
turbocompressors parts. Equipment suppliers such as Elliot Energy Systems, Capstone and
Allied Signal Aerospace have been proposing this equipment for fuels such as natural gas
and diesel, but intensive research is being carried out to adapt these microturbines aiming
to use low calorific value gas from biomass gasification.

A paper published in the Fortune magazine about microturbines market potential (Brown,
1996) forecasts that the increasing production of such equipment for hybrid automobiles
will reduce considerably their cost. So, a 24 kWe turbine, costing currently 500 $/kWe
could reach 85 $/kWe. However, for utilities costs of about 250 $/kWe could be
sufficiently attractive. In the same paper a commentary is made on the great future
possibilities of this technology for decentralized electricity generation in developing
countries. In fact, considering the difficulties for funding large thermal and the continuous
increase of electricity demand, more and more the decentralized low scale electricity
generation is attractive for developing countries.

Some studies about feasibility of small scale biomass electricity generation systems have
been carried out. The National Resources Institute in Great Britain developed a project
aimed to analyze the potential of energy crops conversion for electricity production in rural
areas in the range of 100-300 kWe (Hollindale et alli, 1996). Conversion routes included in
this project were: small steam engines, gasifier/internal combustion engine, bio-oils fueled
internal combustion engines and indirect heating gas turbines. Two scenarios were
analyzed: (1) integrated farm, where agriculture and electricity generation components are
considered as one system and (2) independent process, where biomass is bought in the
market. The generation cost varies in the range 0,12-0,25 $/kWh, in both scenarios
resulting the lower value to the indirect heating gas turbine option.

Solantausta et alli (1996) indicate that with small scale electricity generation it is
practically impossible to reach generation cost levels competitive with large power plants,
because in small installations the operational costs (fuel and labor) are very high.
Nevertheless, these evaluations are generally carried out assuming biomass and labor
prices typical for developed countries.

Another perspective for small scale electricity generation is the utilization of biomass
furnaces coupled with Stirling engines. In Denmark two sets of 30 and 150 kWe are being
tested. It is expected to reach a cycle efficiency of 22 and 26 %, respectively (Carlsen,
1996). The SINTEF from Norway is planning to test an 15 kWe Stirling engine coupled
with a biomass gasifier and a gas combustor (Fossum, 1997).

In the paper the results of the technical and economical evaluation of different systems for
low scale electricity generation, including microturbines, are presented. The model is
evaluated for a wide range of parameters and a sensitivity analysis is carried out. Some
specific results for the Brazilian conditions are shown as well.
 GENERAL EVALUATION OF SMALL SCALE ELECTRICITY GENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES.

Three technologies are considered in this study:

• A diesel engine, fueled with conventional diesel oil (MCI),

• A biomass gasifier coupled with an internal combustion engine (G/MCI),
• A gasifier/gas microturbine set (G/MT).

Taking into account the typical applications, the capacity of the power plant to be analyzed
was 45 kWe and biomass price ranged from 0 to 3 $/GJ. Other considerations done during
calculations are presented as follows, afterwards evaluated by a sensitivity analysis:

• Annual operation - 8000 hours

• Interest rate - 6 %
• Load factor - 0,60
• Biomass calorific value - 14 MJ/kg
• Diesel price - 0,39 $/liter
• The internal combustion engine losses due to the operation with gasification gas
was supposed to be 30 % of capacity, and the diesel substitution by gasification
gas was 75 % (expressed as heat).
• The gas microturbine is supposed to maintain its nominal efficiency and
capacity during the operation with gasification gas.

For the microturbine option the Elliot Energy Systems 45 kWe model was chosen to be
considered in calculations. The main parameters of this turbine are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Elliot Energy Systems 45 kWe parameters.

Parameter Value
Power 45 kWe at 15 oC and sea level
Efficiency 30 %
Exhaust gas temperature (after recuperator) 315 oC
Gas inlet turbine temperature 1010 oC
Weight Less than 136 kg

Figure 1 shows the dependence between the generation cost and the biomass fuel price for
the considered technologies. For a biomass cost of 3 $/GJ the generation cost of the G/MCI
and the G/MT are the same. For biomass prices less than 2 $/GJ the generation cost of the
G/MT set is considerable lower. According to Martin et alli (1995) biomass fuel prices in
the range 3-5 ECU/GJ can not be considered as commercially competitive.
 Generation cost, $/MWh
0,2
0,18
0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Fuel price, $/GJ

G/MT G/MCI MCI

Figure 1- Dependence of the generation cost from biomass fuel price (load factor 0,60).

Figure 2 shows the influence of level of utilization on the generation cost for different
biomass prices. It shows clearly that the increase in generation cost is steeper for the low
values of load factor, reaching 0,25-0,30 $/kWh for an availability of 0,2. To keep the
generation cost below 0,1 $/kWh is necessary to have load factor values greater than 0,7,
but it should be stressed that this variable depends basically on the user side, therefore it is
not alterable easily.

0,35

0,3
Generation cost, $/kWh

0,25

0,2 1GJ/kg
2GJ/kg
0,15 3GJ/kg

0,1

0,05

0
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Availability

Figure 2 Influence of availability and biomass fuel price on generation cost for the G/MT
case.

As the expected level of utilization is generally low, the ratio (operational cost/total cost)
tends to decrease for low capacity generation systems. So another important parameter to
evaluate is the capital investment, in $/kWe. A value of about 1000 $/kWe can be
considered a target to reach. Figure 3 shows the influence of the capital investment value
on the generation cost. In this figure capital investment is expressed as relative investment
- the relationship between actual investment in $/kWe and the "target" of 1000 $/kWe. For
a 45 kWe G/MT and a microturbine cost of about US$ 15000, the gasifier cost must be
lower than US$ 30000. So, for this systems is necessary to design a simple, efficient and
reliable gasifier. As shown in figure 3 for the G/MT system and 0,60 as load factor,
generation costs lower than 0,1 $/kWh are achieved for a relative investment ranging from
0,7 to 0,8.

0,2
Generation cost

0,15
G/MT
0,1
G/MCI
0,05

0
0 1 2 3
Relative Investment (Inv./1000)

Figure 3 Influence of the specific investment on the generation cost for the G/MT case load
(factor availability 0,60, biomass price 2 $/GJ).

In many countries, including Brazil, diesel price is subsidized, according a controversial

policy which distorts the energy costs. Thus, it is interesting to evaluate the influence of
the ratio between diesel and biomass prices (D/B) and the generation cost for the three
analyzed technologies. It is considered that the diesel price changes in the range 0,39-1,0
$/l. As presented in Figure 4, it is clear that for D/B values near 2,5 the power generation
cost is the same for diesel and biomass gasification based technologies. For diesel prices
currently adopted in the Developing Countries (D/B ≈ 10-15) diesel electricity generation
is considerable more expensive.

Table 2 shows the results of the model sensitivity analysis. It can be concluded that for
biomass gasification systems load factor is far the most influential factor, followed by
capital investment and labor. For the diesel generation the same parameter is also the main
influencing factor followed by diesel price and engine efficiency.
 Generation cost
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 5 10 15 20

Relationship Pdiesel/Pbiomass

G/MT G/MCI M CI

Figure 4 Dependence between the generation cost and the diesel/biomass prices ratio (D/B)
(load factor 0,60 and biomass price 2 $/GJ)

Table 2- Sensitivity analysis: impact on generation cost.

Parameter Variation G/MT G/MCI MCI

range
Gasifier Efficiency + 20 % -4,6 % -1,6 % -
- 20 % +6,4 % +2,4 % -
Engine or Turbine Efficiency, + 20 % -4,9 % -4,1 % -14,3
- 20 % +6,6 % +4,9 % +14,7
Labor + 20 % +6,4 % +5,7 % +4,4 %
- 20 % -7,3 % -6,5 % -3,8 %
Investment + 20 % +6,4 % +6,5 % +1,1 %
- 20 % -7,3 % -6,5 % -0,5 %
Biomass Price + 20 % +4,6 % +1,6 % -
- 20 % -5,5 % -1,6 % -
Diesel Price + 20 % - +4,1 % +14,7 %
- 20 % - -4,1 % -14,7 %
Load factor + 20 % -12,8 % -13,9 % -16,4 %
- 20 % +17,4 % +17,2 % +25,6 %

SMALL SCALE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FOR BRAZILIAN CONDITIONS

Biomass cost and yields in Brazil

According to data published by Couto et alli (1993) the plantation cost of eucalyptus in the
Brazilian States of São Paulo and Minas Gerais varies in the range from 0,54 to 2,19, being
the mean value 1,16 $/GJ. Mimosa (Bracatinga) plantation cost are much lower and reach
in the Paraná State 0,33 $/GJ (Couto et alli (1993). Logging and transport cost varies from
51 to 70 % of total delivered wood cost (Perlack et alli, 1995). So, final cost of eucalyptus
must be in the range 2,2-3,6 $/GJ. An estimate of average cost of eucalyptus in Northeast
Brazil shows a mean value of 2,11 $/GJ (Carpentieri et alli, 1994). Data from the
Electricity Company of the Minas Gerais State CEMIG have an average price value of
2,19 $/GJ (CEMIG, 1997). It is assumed a biomass price of 2,3 $/GJ as an average value
for present Brazilian conditions.

Resulting basically from forestry practice improvements, from 1970 to 1993 the
productivity of the large scale Brazilian plantations increased in some cases from 35
m3st/ha to 70 m3st/ha (Perlack et alli, 1995), m3st meaning cubic meter as round wood
apparent volume. Figure 5 presents the average yield values of energy forest from
eucalyptus, pinus, Acacia and Araucaria in Brazil (Associação Nacional de Fabricantes de
Papel e Celulose, 1994).

Average yield of Energy forest in Brazil

50

40
st/ha/year

30

20

10

0
Eucalyptus Pinus Acacia Araucaria

Figure 5- Average yield of different forest species in Brazil (Associação Nacional de

Fabricantes de Papel e Celulose, 1994).

Results of the techno-economical analysis for Brazilian conditions.

Table 3 presents the basic data adopted in the technoeconomical analysis carried out to
evaluate small scale electricity generation in the Brazilian conditions. In Table 4 are
presented the main results of these calculations. In Figure 6 is shown the composition of
the total annual cost of generated electricity for the case G/MT for Brazilian conditions. It
is clear that investment and salaries are the components with greater specific weight.
Table 3- Data for the technoeconomical analysis of small scale electricity generation
technologies.
Data Units MCI G/MCI G/MT
Gasifier cost $ - 32500 32500
Engine or gas turbine cost $ 9000 15000 13500
Gas cleaning system cost $ - 6500 6500
Engine or microturbine capacity kW 45 75 45
Gasifier efficiency - - 0,8 0,8
Engine or microturbine efficiency - - - 0,3
Biomass calorific value kJ/kg - 13000 13000
Diesel price $/l 0,47 0,47 -
Availability factor - 0,6 0,6 0,6
O & M tax 1/year 0,022 0,022 0,022
Interest tax 1/year 0,06 0,06 0,06
3
Average yield of eucalyptus m st/ha.year - 47 47

Table 4- Results of the technoeconomical analysis of small scale electricity generation

technologies for present Brazilian conditions.
Calculated parameter Symbol MCI G/MCI G/MT
Total Investment $ 9000,0 54000,0 52500,0
Biomass fuel consumption kg/hour - 19,5 51,9
Diesel consumption kg/hour 9,5 2,5 -
Annual fuel cost $/year 35605,4 8644,5 8300,0
Labor annual cost $/year 8300,0 8300,0 8300,0
Total annual cost $/year 45543,4 26772,5 24449,0
Generation cost $/kWh 0,21 0,12 0,11
Average area of planted ha - 1,99 5,33
eucalyptus required

Fuel Investment
29% 33%

O&M
Salaries 5%
33%

Figure 6 Share of the total annual cost (G/MT technology, load factor 0,65).
 CONCLUSIONS

From the studied cases, it was possible to draw the following main conclusions:

1 For a biomass price of 3 $/GJ, the G/MCI and G/MT systems generation costs are the
same. For biomass prices lower than 2 $/GJ the G/MT system generation cost is
considerable lower.

2 For a ratio between diesel and biomass prices (D/B) near 2,5 the generation cost is the
same for diesel and biomass gasification based technologies.

3 For Brazilian conditions (forest productivity and biomass prices) the G/MT technology
has the lower generation cost (0,11 $/kWh).

4 For biomass gasification systems, the load factor is the more influential factor,
followed by capital investment and labor.

REFERENCES

1 Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Papel e Celulose, "Statistical Forest Report"

1994.

2 Brown S.F., “Here come the pint-size power plants”, Industrial Management and
Technology, Fortune, April 1, 1996.

3 Carlsen, H., “Stirling engines for biomass: state-of-the-art with focus on results from
Danish products”, in Biomass for Energy and the Environment, Proceedings of the 9th
European Bioenergy Conference, Edited by Chartier, ph., Ferrero, G.L. , Henius, U.M.,
Hultberg, S., Sachau, J., Wiinblad, M., Vol. 1, pp. 278-284, 1996.

4 Carpentieri, A.E., Larson, E.D., Woods, J., “Future biomass based electricity supply in
Norheast Brazil”, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 4(3), pp. 73-149.

5 CEMIG, "PE- Acompanhamento de preços de energéticos", junho, 1997.

6 Couto, S.L., Graça, L.R., Betters, D.R., "Energy from biomass: the experience of the
Brazilian forest", In: proceedings of the First Biomass Conference of the Americas,
1993, Burlington, Vermont, vol.1, p. 42-53, 1993.

7 De Ruyck, J., Allard, G., Mamniatis , K., “An externally fired evaporative gas turbine
cycle for small scale biomass gasification”, in Biomass for Energy and the
Environment, Proceedings of the 9th European Bioenergy Conference, Edited by
Chartier, ph., Ferrero, G.L. , Henius, U.M., Hultberg, S., Sachau, J., Wiinblad, M., Vol.
1, pp. 260-265, 1996.

8 Fossum, M., Comunicação pessoal, 1997.

9 Hollindale, A.C., Breag, G.R., Reupke, P., Tariq, A.S., “Decentralized electricity
production from biomass”, in Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and
Industry, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference, Edited by Chartier,
Ph.,Beenackers, A.A.C.M., Grassi, G., pp. 1037-1041, Vol. 2., 1995.

10 Perlack, R.D., Wright, L.L., Huston, M.A., Shramm, W.E., "Biomass fuel from woody
crops for electric power generation", Oak Ridge National Laboratoty, ORNL - 6871.

11 Solantausta, Y., Kurkela, E., Wilen, C., Barbucci, P., Neri, G., De Lange, H.,
Hulkkonen, S., Heinoken, O., Aijala, M., “Feasibility of electricity production for
biomass based on gasification”, in Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and
Industry, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference, Edited by Chartier,
Ph.,Beenackers, A.A.C.M., Grassi, G., pp. 1579-1589, Vol. 2., 1995.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge The Science Support Foundation of the Minas Gerais State -
FAPEMIG for the support to this work.