biomass energy in asia: a study of selected technologies

S.C. BhattacharyaRam M. Shrestha

H.L. Pham

Asian Regional Research Programme in Energy, Environment and Climate (ARRPEEC)

Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

Biomass Energy in Asia: A Study of Selected Technologies and Policy Options

Biomass Study Team

AIT Prof. S.C. Bhattacharya*,Prof. Ram M. Shrestha,Dr. N.T. Kim Oanh (Emission

study),Dr. H.L. Pham,P. Abdul Salam, Dionel Albina

China Prof. Li JunfengCenter for Renewable EnergyDevelopment (CRED)Prof. Y. H. Zhuang (Emission study)Research Center for Eco-

environmentalSciences (RCEES)

Institution, Project Team & Leader*

Biomass Study Team

India Prof. N.H. RavindranathIISc, BangaloreDr. H.P. Narang (Emission Study)NPL, Delhi

Malaysia Dr. Hoi Why KongForest Research Institute Malaysia

Philippines Dr. Jessie C. ElauriaUniversity of the Philippines Los

Baños(UPLB)

Institution & Project Team

Biomass Study Team

Sri Lanka Dr. A.G.T. SugathapalaUniversity of Moratuwa

Thailand Dr.Boonrod SajjakulnukitDepartment of Energy

Development and Promotion (DEDP)

Dr.Monthip Tabucanon (Emission Study) Department of Environmental Quality Promotion

Vietnam Prof. Pham Ngoc Ho (Emission Study)

University of Science, Hanoi

Institution & Project Team

Major Research Activities

•Assessment of sustainable biomass resource potential,

•Assessment of cost of CO2 abatement through substitution of fossil fuel and traditional biomass systems by selected modern/improved biomass energy systems,

•Policy analysis to identify barriers to deployment of Biomass Energy Technologies (BETs),

•Ranking of modern BETs, and•Ranking of barriers to the deployment of

modern BETs.

Plantation biomassA study was conducted to assess: i) land availability for biomass plantation, and ii) potential of further energy supply from biomass plantation in such land. The energy potential of plantation biomass is 5-6%, 5-24%, 0.2-0.8%, 2-11%, 7-35%, and 3-31% of the projected total energy consumption in 2010 in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively.

Biomass production is found profitable in all countries, even at low to moderate productivity.

Biomass resource potential assessment

Table 1: Energy potential of plantation biomass Country Energy

potential of plantation

biomass (PJ)

Projected total energy consumptio

n in 2010 (PJ)

Percentage of projected

energy consumption

in 2010

Cost of biomass

production (US$/tonne)

China 2700 - 3150 52,740 5 - 6 0.86 -12.9

India 930 - 4650 19,200 5 - 24 5.6 - 7.8

Malaysia 6 - 26 3,172 0.2-0.8 20.3 - 23

Philippines 56 - 306 2,858 2 - 11 5.1 - 5.4

Sri Lanka 30 - 150 425 7 - 35 8.2 - 12

Thailand 174 - 1600 5,132 3 - 31 6 - 13.3

Biomass resource potential assessment (cont’d.)

The key barriers to biomass production for energy include:

• Technical barriers: high investment costs of dedicated plantations, and low biomass productivity.

• Financial barriers: lack of investment in the forestry sector, difficulty in accessing finance, and lack of incentives.

• Institutional barriers: lack of co-ordination among different government agencies, lack of mechanism for their interaction with private sector, lack of a designated agency for promoting biomass energy/plantation and lack of access to expertise on plantation in degraded land.

• Policy barriers: unclear, unsupportive and biased government policy and absence of national strategy or priority for promoting biomass energy use.


Non-plantation biomassResources assessed include: agricultural residues; animal wastes; municipal solid waste (MSW) and landfill gas; industrial waste water; and black liquor, biomass fuels that can be saved through efficiency improvement and their substitution by other fuels. The energy potential of non-plantation biomass is estimated to be about 18%, 44%, 18%, 27%, 31%, 17% of the projected total energy consumption in 2010 in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively.


Table 2: Total non-plantation bio-energy potential (PJ)Types of Biomass

Sri Lanka India China Philippines Malaysia Thailand

1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010

Agricultural residues

49.6 55.6 4714 6564 5068 5246 164 178 343 454 425 562

Animal wastes

6.3 6.5 336 374 1102 2095 2.9 4.9 - - 13 13

Biomass from conservation

51.3 50.2 - 525 - 744 249 296 - - - 156

MSW 3.7 4.8 86 219 50 91 36.4 46.8 10 17.8 19 21.3

Waste water

0.2 0.4 6.5 15.1 102 102 - - - - 7.8 8

Black liquor - 0.2 - - 157 287 0.4 0.02 - - 8.8 9

Palm oil - - - - - - - - 67 90.5 1.3 1

Biomass from substitution

- 15.5 - 900 - 914 109 254 - - - 109

Total 111 133 5142 8597 6479 9479 561 779 420 562 475 880


The estimated cost of CO2 abatement through substitution of fossil fuel and traditional biomass systems by selected modern/improved biomass energy systems ranges from negative to moderate positive values.

Cost of CO2 abatement through selected BETS

Table 3: GHG abatement cost Modern/improved biomass energy systems

Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted

GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne)China India Phil. Thailand

Biomass IGCC power plant

Coal-fired power plant 2 14.6

Electricityfrom bagasse based cogeneration

Coal IGCC Power Plant

-7.8

Coal-fired power plant 49Grid electricity -20.5

Electricity frombagasse-coal based cogeneration

Electricity from gas cogeneration

-0.4

Electricity from rice husk based cogeneration

Diesel-Gen-set -71.1

Biogas fired power plant

Coal-fired power plant 62

Biogas Engine System Diesel generator -190 -88.4 to –48.3

Grid electricity 13.9

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d.)Modern/improved biomass energy systems


GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne)India Phil. Sri Lanka Thai-

land

Land fill gas-engine system

Diesel-Gen-set -6.2

Biomass gasifier-engined system (dual fuel mode)

Diesel generator -149 -62.5 to 32Grid electricity 45.3

Biomass gasifier-engine system (gas mode)

Grid electricity 14.5

Biomass fired power plant

Grid electricity -23.5

Wood/Rice husk fired power plant

Furnace oil fired power plant

9.8

Coal fired power plant 4.8 6.2 to16.9Oil fired combine cycle power plant

-28.1 -59

Furnace oil fired power plant

-7.1

Gas turbine power plant -79.1

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d.)

Modern/improved biomass energy systems


GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne)India Phil. Thailand

Community biogas- fired stove

Traditional fuel-wood stove

19.1

Kerosene stove 2.5 83Charcoalstove

LPG stove 28.2 -3.7Kerosene stove 24.5

Improvedcookstoves

Traditional fuelwood stove

-10.8 -34.2

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d.)



GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne)China Phil. Sri

LankaThai-land

Producer gas fired stove

Coal stove 50LPG Stove -13

Biogas-fired stove

Coal stove 74LPG stove 9 118Traditional Stove -12.7Improved Stove 13.4Electric Stove -20.8



GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne)China Sri

LankaThailand

Producer gas fired boiler

Coal fired boiler 15

Biogas fired boiler Coal fired boiler 94Multi-fuel (50% coal,25 % wood, 25 % rice husk) boiler

Coal fired boiler 15.4

Sawdust fired boiler Furnace oil firedboiler

-124

Fuel wood fired furnace

Furnace oil fired boiler

-23.2

Biomass fuelled dryer LPG fueled dryer -34Producer gas fired kiln LPG fired kiln 82

Policy Objectives

Some Asian countries have come up with clear mission/policy objectives statement on renewable energy (RE).

China: Raising efficiency and reducing cost in order to boost the share of RE in national energy supply.

India: Meeting minimum rural energy needs, provision of decentralised energy needs and grid quality power generation and supply.

In all study countries RE is now recognised as important for providing energy services, particularly in remote and rural areas.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Policy Highlights

Institutional Structure

China: several government entities are involved in renewable energy planning and development; these include the State Development and Planning Commission (SDPC), the State Economic and Trade Commission (SETC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST).

India: a separate Ministry (MNES) for overall planning and programme formulation.

Malaysia: a number of organizations are responsible for formulating policies for RE development.


Philippines: Department of Energy (DOE) formulates energy policies. The Non-Conventional Energy Division of DOE is responsible for RE development in collaboration with a number of other national energy related agencies.

Thailand: National Energy Policy Office formulates policy on energy, including renewable energy while the Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP) implements the policies.

Sri Lanka: There is no specific government body responsible for promoting renewable energy in Sri Lanka. Ministry of Irrigation, Power and Energy (MIPE) and Ministry of Forest and Environment (MFE) mainly deal with Biomass.


Fiscal and Financial Incentives

Investment subsidy is provided to all major renewable energy technologies and is also available to a lesser extent in China and Thailand.

In India, 100% depreciation in the first year is allowed for certain equipment. Other fiscal incentives available in India include exemption/reduction in excise duty, and customs duty concessions on imports. Tax incentives for biomass energy projects are also available in Malaysia, China and Thailand.

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

Provisions for PPAs are quite well established in India, China and Thailand. Wind farms in China have a right to sell electricity to the grid at a price giving them a reasonable profit even if the price is higher than the grid’s average price level.


Research and Development

Improved cookstove programs have been undertaken in practically all countries.

Relatively less has been done regarding traditional biomass energy systems in rural industries. In Asia, only India and China have achieved some success in R&D efforts on modern biomass energy systems.

Not much is being done in areas of high technology in biomass energy, e.g., flash pyrolysis of biomass, production of ethanol from lingo-cellulosic materials, and integrated gasification combined cycle.


Modern biomass energy technologies (BETs) face a number of barriers: technical, institutional, informational, and financial.

Technical Barriers

Some of the modern BETs need further R&D efforts.

Other barriers include: lack of standardisation, lack of local expertise/manufacturers/agents, lack maintenance service, and technology-specific problems.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Barriers to BETs

Institutional BarriersThese include lack of co-ordination among concerned government agencies, poor state and capability of national research institutes, and lack of micro-credit financing mechanisms.Information BarriersMain barriers are lack of enough information on national biomass resource base, and lack of information on currently commercial/mature BETs. Financial BarriersMain barriers are lack of investment in the field of bioenergy, and perceived risks of bioenergy systems.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Barriers to BETs

The ranking of BETs helps policy makers to focus better on a few most important technologies. Developing a suitable strategy for promoting bioenergy would involve removal of the most important barriers to these technologies.

In this study several BETs were ranked using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on the following criteria:

Potential to make socio-economic impact,

Potential to meet overall national energy needs, and

Potential to attract investment (domestic and external)

Improved and modern biomass-based cooking and electricity generation technologies have been found to be the most important BETs.

Ranking of Biomass Energy Technologies

Legend:B-COGEN:Bagasse-based cogeneration;BGC: Biogas for cooking; BGP: Biogas plants;BGPG: Biogas for power generation; BIGCC: Biomass integrated gasification

combined cycle;

Table 5:Overall ranking of Biomass Energy TechnologiesOverall ranking

Biomass Energy TechnologiesChina India Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand

1 ICS BGP BMSPP BIGCC ICS2 BGC BMG BIGCC BMSPP BGC3 COGEN B-COGEN BGC BGPG GBPH4 BGPG ICS BGPG IK/S BMSPP5 GBPG ICS ICS COGEN6 GBPH GBPH B-COGEN BGPH/PG7 BMSPP B-COGEN GBPH8 ICSPH BGC

BMG: Biomass gasifiers;BMSPP: Biomass fired steam power plant; COGEN: Cogeneration;GBPH: Gasification based process heat;ICS: Improved cookstoves;ICSPH: Improved stoves for process heat;IK/S: Improved kilns/stoves

The barriers to the spread of a number of BETs were ranked in the study countries using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on the following criteria:

•‘impact’ the removal of the barrier would have on the spread of the technology, and

• ‘level of effort’ needed to overcome the barrier.

[Only the results on the barriers to improved cookstoves (common to all country studies) are presented here.]

High initial cost, lack of performance assurance/standards, and lack of micro-credit financing mechanisms are the most important barriers to improved cookstove commercialisation.

Ranking of barriers to biomass energy technologies

Legend: DGL: Difficulty in getting loans;HIC: High Intial Cost;LoA&I : Lack of awareness/information on improved stoves,incentives, subsidies availableLoCAGA: Lack of coordination among government agencies;LoLAHPD:Lack of local availability of high performance devices;LoLE: Lack of local expertise/know-how, skills; LoMCFM: Lack of micro-credit financing mechanism; LoPA: Lack of Performance assurance/standards;SFF: Subsidy to fossil fuels/electricity;

Table 4: Overall ranking of barriers to the spread of improved cookstoves

Overall ranking

BarriersChina India Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand

1 LoPA HIC HIC LoLE HIC2 LoMCFM DGL LoLAHPD LoPAS LoMCFM3 HIC LoPA LoPA LoCAGA SFF4 LoLAHPD LoLE LoLE LoLaHPD LoPA5 LoLE LoLAHPD LoCAGA LoMCFM LOCAGA6 SFF LoA&I LoMCFM HIC LoLE7 LoCAGA SFF SFF LoLAHPD

New plantations and non-plantation sources can potentially significantly raise energy supplies from biomass.

RE sources are now recognised as important in meeting growing energy demands, particularly in remote and rural areas.

Improved and modern biomass-based cooking and electricity generation technologies are the most important BETs in the study countries.

Modern BETs face a variety of barriers; the most important barriers in the case of improved cookstove are high initial cost, lack of performance assurance/standards, and lack of micro-credit financing mechanisms.

Conclusions

Thank you

biomass energy in asia: a study of selected technologies

Documents