Document Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology, Iran

3 Department of Environment, Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Approximately 2.4 million tons of bagasse are produced each year in Iran, most of which are currently treated as waste adding to serious environmental concerns. Application of bagasse for energy production is a sustainable solution to supply the required energy within the sugar refineries and export the surplus electricity to the grid. Currently, the energy demand in Iranian sugar mills is mainly supplied by fossil fuels (natural gas or mazut). Bagasse fluidized bed and fixed bed gasification plants would respectively lead to save 59,250 and 21,750 tons of CO2 annually, compared to gas power plants of the same scale. The present study aims to compare the environmental economic analysis of electricity generation in 10-MW gas-fired power plants with that electricity generation in bagasse gasification plants (with fluidized bed and fixed bed reactors) exemplarily in Iran. The bagasse fluidized bed gasification option (with IRR of 28.6%) showed the most promising economic viability compared to bagasse fixed bed gasification and gas power plant cases with IRR values of 25.09 and 21.94%, respectively. Furthermore, bagasse gasification options were potentially characterized by a better environmental performance compared to fossil-fuelled options. On the other hand, the obtained levelised cost of electricity at gas power plants (2 cents/kWh) was lower than the global range and lower than bagasse gasification cases (7-9 cents/kWh). The results revealed the vital need of biomass power plants to governmental support in order to compete with fossil power plants by participation of private sector.

Graphical Abstract

Highlights

  • Investment in CHP gas power plants had more economic attractiveness compared to bagasse gasification plants;
  • LCOE at bagasse gasification plants with fluidized bed reactors was slightly lower than fixed bed gasification plants;
  • Internal rate of return in the investment of bagasse gasification plants with fluidized bed reactors was higher compared to those with fixed bed reactors;
  • LCOE at combined cycle gas power plants in Iran was much lower than global values.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Ahmad, A.A.; Zawawi, N.A.; Kasim, F.H.; Inayat, A.; Khasri, A., (2016). Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 53: 1333–1347 (15 pages).

Amin Salehi, F.; Abdoli, M.A.; Shokouhmand, H.; Jafari, H.R., (2012). Techno-economic assessment for energy generation using bagasse: case study. Int. J. Energy Res., 37(8): 982–990 (9 pages).

Anukam, A.; Mamphweli, S.; Reddy, P.; Meyer, E.; Okoh, O., (2016). Pre-processing of sugarcane bagasse for gasification in a downdraft biomass gasifier system: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 66: 775–801 (7 pages).

Ardila, Y.C.; Figueroa, J.E.J.; Lunelli, B.H.; Filho, R.M.; Maciel, M.R.W., (2012). Syngas production from sugar cane bagasse in a circulating fluidized bed gasifier using Aspen Plus: Modelling and simulation. Computer Aided Chem. Eng., 30: 1093-1097 (5 pages).

Asadullah, M., (2014). Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasification: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 29(C): 201-215 (15 pages).

Avami, A.; Sattari, S., (2007). Energy conservation opportunities: Sugar industry in Iran. Int. J. Energy, 1(3): 65–71 (7 pages).

Azadi, P.; Nezam Sarmadi, A.; Mahmoudzadeh, A.; Shirvani, T., (2017). The Outlook for natural gas, electricity, and renewable energy in Iran. Stanford Iran 2040 Project, Stanford University, Working Paper 3: 1–27 (27 pages).

Balat, M.; Osman, H., (2005). Use of biomass sources for energy in Turkey and a view to biomass potential. Biomass Bioenergy, 29(1): 32–41 (10 pages).

Blok, K.; Huijbregts, M.; Roes, L.; Haaster, B.; Patel, M.; Hertwich, E.; Wood, R.; Michael, Z.; Hauschild, Piet Sellke.; Antunes, Paula.; Hellweg, Stefanie.; Ciroth, Andreas.; Harmelink, M., (2013). Handbook on a novel methodology for the sustainability impact assessment of new technologies. Utrecht University-Prosuite project, 1–23 (23 pages).

Broek, R.; Burg, T.; Wijk, A.; Turkenburg, W., (2000). Electricity generation from eucalyptus and bagasse by sugar mills in Nicaragua: A comparison with fuel oil electricity generation on the basis of costs, macro-economic impacts and environmental emissions. Biomass Bioenergy, 19: 311–335 (25 pages).

Caputo, A.C.; Palumbo, M.; Pelagagge, P.M.; Scacchia, F., (2005). Economics of biomass energy utilization in combustion and gasification plants: Effects of logistic variables. Biomass Bioenergy. 28(1): 35–51 (17 pages).

Ciferno, J.P.; Marano, J.J.; (2002). Benchmarking biomass gasification technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – National Energy Technology Laboratory technical report (NETL), 1: 1–58 (58 pages).

Dantas, G.A.; Legey, L.F.L.; Mazzone, A., (2013). Energy from sugarcane bagasse in Brazil: An assessment of the productivity and cost of different technological routes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 21: 356–364 (9 pages).

DEA, (2016). The Danish levelized cost of energy calculator. Danish Energy Agency, 1(1): 1–68 (68 pages).

Dutta, A.; Talmadge, M.; Hensley, J.; Worley, M.; Dudgeon, D.; Barton, D.; Groenendijk, P.; Ferrari, D.; Stears, B.; Searcy, E.; Wright, C.; Hess, J.R., (2012). Techno-economics for conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol by indirect gasification and mixed alcohol synthesis. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, 31(2): 182–190 (9 pages).

EIA, (2019). Annual energy outlook 2019. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1(January): 1–83 (83 pages).

Falode, O.A.; Ladeinde, A.O., (2016). Economic evaluation of gas power plant project for the first gas industrial park in Nigeria. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol., 17(1): 1–19 (19 pages).

Gabra, M.; Pettersson, E.; Backman, R.; Kjellstrom, B., (2001). Evaluation of cyclone gasifier performance for gasifcation of sugar cane residue - Part 2: Gasifcation of cane trash. Biomass Bioenergy, 21(5): 371–380 (10 pages).

Hijazi, O.; Munro, S.; Zerhusen, B.; Effenberger, M., (2016). Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 54: 1291–1300 (10 pages).

Hosseini, S.E.; Mahmoudzadeh Andwari, A.; Abdul Wahid, M.; Bagheri, G., (2013). A review on green energy potentials in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 27: 533–545 (13 pages).

IEA, (2007). Biomass for power generation and CHP. Int. Energy Agency- Energy technology essentials, OECD/IEA, 1–4 (4 pages).

IEA, (2015). Projected costs of generating electricity. Int. Energy Agency, 1(1): 1–250 (250 pages).

Indrawan, N.; Thapa, S.; Bhoi, P.R.; Huhnke, R.L.; Kumar, A., (2017). Engine power generation and emission performance of syngas generated from low-density biomass. Energy Convers. Manage., 148(15): 593–603 (11 pages).

IRENA, (2012). Renewable energy technologies cost analysis series: Concentrating solar power. Int. Renew. Energy Agency, 2(1): 1–60 (60 pages).

IRENA, (2013). Renewable power generation costs in 2012: An overview. Int. Renew. Energy Agency, 1: 1–12 (12 pages).

IRENA, (2015). Data methodology. Int. Renew. Energy Agency, 2(1): 1–14 (14 pages).

IRENA, (2017). Renewable power generation costs in 2017. Int. Renew. Energy Agency, 1: 1–16 (16 pages).

ISFS, (2017). Reports of sugar cane and sugar beet mills of Iran. Iranian sugar factories syndicate, 1: 1–58 (58 pages).

ISO, (2019). Sugar Yearbook. International Sugar Organization, 1: 1-75 (75 pages).

Kvist, T.; Frohn, L.M.; Jørgensen, L., (2011). Environmental optimisation of natural gas fired engines. International Gas Union Research Conference (IGRC), (19–21 October): 1–10 (10 pages).

Luz, F.C.; Rocha, M.H.; Lora, E.E.S.; Venturini, O.J.; Andrade, R.V.; Leme, M.M.V.; Olmo, O.A., (2015). Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Convers. Manage., 103: 321–337 (17 pages).

Matsumura, Y.; Yokoyama, S.Y., (2005). Current situation and prospect of biomass utilization in Japan. Biomass Bioenergy, 29(5): 304–309 (6 pages).

Mbohwa, C.; Fukuda, S., (2003). Electricity from bagasse in Zimbabwe. Biomass Bioenergy, 25: 197–207 (11 pages).

Meerman, J.C.; Knoope, M.M.J; Ramírez, A.; Turkenburg, W.C.; Faaij, A.P.C., (2013). Technical and economic prospects of coal- and biomass-fired integrated gasification facilities equipped with CCS over time. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, 16: 311–323 (13 pages).

Mohammadi, F.; Roedl, A.; Abdoli, M.A.; Amidpour, M.; Vahidi, H., (2020). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the energetic use of bagasse in Iranian sugar industry. Renew. Energy, 145: 1870–1882 (13 pages).

Naqvi, M.; Yan, J.; Dahlquist, E.; Raza, S., (2016). Waste biomass gasification based off-grid electricity generation: A case study in Pakistan. Energy Procedia, 103(April): 406–412 (7 pages).

NETL, (2015). Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants: Bituminous coal (PC) and natural gas to electricity. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 1(3): 1–240 (240 pages).

Nian, V.; Sun, Q.; Ma, Z.; Li, H., (2016). A comparative cost assessment of energy production from central heating plant or combined heat and power plant. Energy Procedia, 104: 556–561 (6 pages).

NNFCC, (2009). Review of technologies for gasification of biomass and wastes. E4-tech, 1: 1–125 (125 pages).

NREL, (2017). Electricity generation baseline report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1: 1–289 (289 pages).

Othman, N.F.; Boosroh, M.H., (2016). Effect of H2 and CO contents in syngas during combustion using micro gas turbine. Effect of H2 and CO contents in syngas during combustion using micro gas turbine. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 32(1-No.12037) 1–5 (5 pages).

Pantaleo, A.M.; Camporeale, S.; Fortunato, B., (2015). Small scale biomass CHP: Techno-economic performance of steam vs gas turbines with bottoming ORC. Energy Procedia, 82: 825–832 (8 pages).

Patel, M.; Zhang, X.; Kumar, A., (2016). Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 53: 1486–1499 (14 pages).

Puig-Arnavat, M.; Bruno, J.C.; Coronas, A., (2010). Review and analysis of biomass gasification models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14(9): 2841–2851 (11 pages).

Safari, F.; Tavasoli, A.; Ataei, A., (2016). Gasification of sugarcane bagasse in supercritical water media for combined hydrogen and power production: A novel approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 13(10): 2393–2400 (8 pages).

Singh, J., (2015). Overview of electric power potential of surplus agricultural biomass from economic, social, environmental and technical perspective: A case study of Punjab. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 42: 286–297 (12 pages).

Sheikhdavoodi, M.J.; Almassi, M.; Ebrahimi-Nik, M.; Kruse, A.; Bahrami, H., (2015). Gasification of sugarcane bagasse in supercritical water; Evaluation of alkali catalysts for maximum hydrogen production. J. energy inst., 88: 450–458 (9 pages).

Tavasoli, A.; Barati, M.; Karimi, A., (2016). Sugarcane bagasse supercritical water gasification in presence of potassium promoted copper nano-catalysts supported on γ-Al2O3. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 41: 174–180 (7 pages).

USDA, (2019). Report: Sugar: world markets and trade. United States department of agriculture, 1(May): 1–7 (7 pages).

Worley, M.; Yale, J., (2012). Biomass gasification technology assessment: Consolidated Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 46(NREL/SR-5100-57085): 1-358 (358 pages). 


Letters to Editor


GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

CAPTCHA Image