Technical and economic analysis of different cogeneration systems for energy production from biomass

This paper compares the results of a techno-economic performance analysis of seven plants for energy production from biomass with the aim of identifying the most effective solution. Small (≤250 KWe) and micro (≤100 KWe) size plants were investigated: 50 kWe diesel internal combustion engine coupled with a gasifier and 35 kWe Stirling engine coupled with a gasifier with an overall efficiency of 41.1% and 87.5% respectively, two biomass cogenerators, one of 25 kWe and the other of 100 kWe, 250 kWe Otto internal combustion engine coupled with a gasifier and 250 kWe diesel internal combustion engine coupled with a gasifier and 238 kWe biomass ORC plant. The technical analysis provided calculations for specific biomass consumption, electricity generation, heat produced and overall system efficiency. The economic evaluation was carried on through a discounted cash flow analysis. Data were provided by literature, analysis of case study at Italian and European level, and directly by the manufacturers of cogeneration systems. The results showed that a combined heat and power (CHP) generator is the best solution because it is economically viable with a high NPV and a PBP of five years and also technically performing with a global efficiency of 78.2% and a low biomass consumption.

[1]  Jitendra Sharma A cross-disciplinary approach to product development and design through quality function deployment, target costing and value engineering , 2012 .

[2]  André Faaij,et al.  Biomass production potentials in Central and Eastern Europe under different scenarios , 2007 .

[3]  H. M. Junginger,et al.  Production and trading of biomass for energy – an overview of the global status , 2007 .

[4]  Luigi Pietro Maria Colombo,et al.  Techno-economic evaluation of commercial cogeneration plants for small and medium size companies in the Italian industrial and service sector , 2012 .

[5]  Pinakeswar Mahanta,et al.  Biomass gasification for decentralized power generation: The Indian perspective , 2010 .

[6]  Jesper Ahrenfeldt,et al.  Biomass gasification cogeneration – A review of state of the art technology and near future perspectives , 2013 .

[7]  A. Vercelli,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions and the energy system: Are current trends sustainable? , 2009 .

[8]  J. Mackevičius,et al.  EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN AND THE NET PRESENT VALUE METHODS , 2010 .

[9]  Rupinder Singh,et al.  Reliability centred maintenance in a thermal power plant: a case study , 2011 .

[10]  John Psarras,et al.  A linguistic TOPSIS model to evaluate the sustainability of renewable energy options , 2009 .

[11]  Henrik Carlsen,et al.  40 kW Stirling engine for solid fuel , 1996, IECEC 96. Proceedings of the 31st Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference.

[12]  André Faaij,et al.  Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices , 2006 .

[13]  Gökhan Akyüz,et al.  A modelling approach in process industry for improving manufacturing performance , 2011 .

[14]  Göran Berndes,et al.  The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies , 2003 .

[15]  Lars J Nilsson,et al.  Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe using a resource-focused approach , 2004 .

[16]  J. R. San Cristóbal,et al.  Investment criteria for the selection of cogeneration plants¿a state of the art review , 2006 .

[17]  Ulli Drescher,et al.  Fluid selection for the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) in biomass power and heat plants , 2007 .

[18]  John Psarras,et al.  Establishment of a European energy policy think-tank: necessity or luxury? , 2010 .