W-T z* 114 WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 296 SMAP ENERGY SERIES i nergv( "n M.iger enii iamv >rog. ie Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers for Heat and Power A Global Review Hubert E. Stassen h77 isi 7m______ RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued) No. 254 Frischtak, Governance Capacity and Economic Reform in Developing Countries No. 255 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Afica Region, July 1987 to April 1994 No. 256 Campbell, Design and Operation of Smallholder Irrigation in South Asia No. 258 De Geyndt, Managing the Quality of Health Care in Developing Countries No. 259 Chaudry, Reid, and Malik, editors, Civil Service Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: Proceedings of a Conference No. 260 Humphrey, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements No. 261 Lynch, Provision for Children with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region No. 262 Lee and Bobadilla, Health Statistics for the Americas No. 263 Le Moigne, Giltner, Subramanian, and Xie, editors, A Guide to the Formulation of Water Resources Strategy No. 264 Miller and Jones, Organic and Compost-Based Growing Media for Tree Seedling Nurseries No. 265 Viswaneth, Building Partnerships for Poverty ReductionThe Participatory Project Planning Approach of the Women's Enterprise Management Training Outreach Program (WEMTOP) No. 266 Hill and Bender, Developing the Regulatory Environment for Competitive Agricultural Markets No. 267 Vald6s and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbook for the Dominican Republic No. 268 Vald6s and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbook for Colombia No. 269 Scheierling, Overcoming Agricultural Pollution of Water: The Challenge of Integrating Agricultural and Environmental Policies in the European Union No. 270 Banerjee, Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests in Asia No. 271 Ahmed, Technological Development and Pollution Abatement: A Study of How Enterprises Are Finding Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons No. 273 Grimshaw and Helfer, editors, Vetiver Grass for Soil and Water Conservation, Land Rehabilitation, and Embankment Stabilization: A Collection of Papers and Newsletters Compiled by the Vetiver network No. 274 Govindaraj, Murray, and Chellaraj, Health Expenditures in Latin America No. 275 Heggie, Management and Financing of Roads: An Agenda for Reform No. 276 Johnson, Quality Review Schemes for Auditors: Their Potential for Sub-Saharan Afica No. 277 Convery, Applying Environmental Economics in Africa No. 278 Wijetilleke and Karunaratne, Air Quality Management: Considerations for Developing Countries No. 279 Anderson and Ahmed, The Case for Solar Energy Investments No. 280 Rowat, Malik, and Dakolias, Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean No. 281 Shen and Contreras-Hermosilla, Environmental and Economic Issues in Forestry: Selected Case Studies in India No. 282 Kim and Benton, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Onchocerciasis Control Program (OCP) No. 283 Jacobsen, Scobie and Duncan, Statutory Intervention in Agricultural Marketing: A New Zealand Perspective No. 284 Vald6s and Schaeffer in collaboration with Roldos and Chiara, Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies: A Handbook for Uruguay No. 285 Brehm and Castro, The Market for Water Rights in Chile: Major Issues No. 286 Tavoulareas and Charpentier Clean Coal Technologies for Developing Countries No. 287 Gillham, Bell, Arin, Matthews, Rumeur, and Hearn, Cotton Production Prospects for the Next Decade No. 289 Dinar, Seidl, Olem, Jorden, Duda, and Johnson, Restoring and Protecting the World's Lakes and Reservoirs No. 290 Weijenberg, Dagg, Kampen Kalunda, Mailu, Ketema, Navarro, and Abdi Noor, Strengthening National Agricultual Research Systems in Eastern and Central Africa: A Framework for Action No. 292 Gorriz, Subramanian, and Simas, Irrigation Management Transfer in Mexico: Process and Progress No. 295 Pohl, Jedrzejczak, and Anderson, Creating Capital Markets in Central and Eastern Europe WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 296 ENERGY SERIES Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers for Heat and Power A Global Review Hubert E. Stassein The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright @ 1995 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing October 1995 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development com- munity with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accor- dance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibili- ty for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatso- ever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy por- tions for classroom use is granted through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Suite 910, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, U.S.A. The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications, which contains an alphabetical title list (with full ordering information) and indexes of sub- jects, authors, and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Distribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'Ina, 75116 Paris, France. ISSN: 0253-7494 Cover photo: Matthew Mendis, Alternative Energy Development, Inc. Hubert E. Stassen is Director of the Biomass Technical Group, Enschede, The Netherlands. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stassen, Hubert E., 1942- Small-scale biomass gasifiers for heat and power: a global review / Hubert E. Stassen. p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494; no. 296. Energy series) Includes bibliographical references (p. - ISBN 0-8213-3371-2 1. Gas producers. 2. Biomass energy. I. Title. II. Series: World Bank technical paper; no. 296. III. Series: World Bank technical paper. Energy series. TP762.S73 1995 333.95'39--dc2O 95-35168 CIP ENERGY SERIES No. 240 Ahmed, Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review of the Status and Costs of Selected Technologies No. 242 Barnes, Openshaw, Smith, and van der Plas, What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves? A Comparative International Review of Stove Programs No. 243 Menke and Fazzari, Improving Electric Power Utility Efficiency: Issues and Recommendations No. 244 Liebenthal, Mathur, and Wade, Solar Energy: Lessons ftm the Pacfic Island Experience No. 271 Ahmed, Technological Development and Pollution Abatement: A Study of How Enterprises are Finding Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons No. 278 Wijetilleke and Karunaratne, Air Quality Management: Considerations for Developing Countries No. 279 Anderson and Ahmed, The Case for Solar Energy Investments No. 286 Tavoulareas and Charpentier, Clean Coal Technologies for Developing Countries Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................... xi Abstract....................................................................................................................... xiii Acknow ledgm ents ..................................................................................................... xv Abbreviations and Sym bols ..................................................................................... xvi 1. Biom ass Gasifiers: An Old and New Technology............................................. 1 Initiatives to Prom ote Use of Biom ass Gasification .............................................. 2 The Biom ass Gasifier M onitoring Program m e ...................................................... 2 2. Biom ass Gasification Technology ...................................................................... 5 Com ponents of a Biom ass Gasification System .................................................... 5 The "Turn-Down Ratio" Concept in Downdraft Gasifiers .................................... 7 New Reactor Technologies .................................................................................... 8 Power G asifiers and Heat Gasifiers ....................................................................... 10 Types and Characteristics of Engines U sing Producer Gas.................................. 10 M axim um Power1............................................................................................. Specific Fuel Consum ption and System Efficiency......................................... 12 Load Factor ...................................................................................................... 12 Biom ass Fuels for Gasifiers.................................................................................. 12 Commercial Status of Small-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems..................... 12 Econom ics.............................................................................................................. 13 Environmental Pollution ........................................................................................ 14 Gaseous Em issions.......................................................................................... 14 Liquid Effl uents .............................................................................................. 14 Solid W astes..................................................................................................... 15 Health and Safety ................................................................................................... 15 3. The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme................. 17 M onitoring M ethodology....................................................................................... 17 M onitored Plants and Sites .................................................................................... 19 Indonesia......................................................................................................... 19 Philippines........................................................................................................ 22 v Brazil ................................................................................................................ 23 Vanuatu ............................................................................................................ 24 M ali .................................................................................................................. 25 Seychelles......................................................................................................... 26 Burundi............................................................................................................. 27 Summ ary ................................................................................................................ 27 Power Gasifiers ................................................................................................ 27 Heat Gasifiers................................................................................................... 27 4. Gasifier Perform ance ........................................................................................... 29 Equipm ent Performance......................................................................................... 29 M axim um Power Output.................................................................................. 29 Specific Fuel Consumption .............................................................................. 31 System Effi ciency ............................................................................................ 31 Diesel Fuel Substitution ................................................................................... 32 Quality Perform ance .............................................................................................. 32 Producer Gas Engines ...................................................................................... 32 Dust Content .................................................................................................... 32 Tar Content ...................................................................................................... 33 Engine Oil ........................................................................................................ 33 Turn-down Ratio .............................................................................................. 33 Gasifier and Other Nonm oving Parts............................................................... 33 Operational Perform ance ....................................................................................... 34 Labor ................................................................................................................ 34 Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 35 Environmental Pollution .................................................................................. 35 Sum m ary ................................................................................................................ 36 5. Econom ics of Biom ass Gasifiers........................................................................ 37 Financial Cost and Perform ance of BGM P Gasifiers ............................................ 37 Power Gasifiers ...................................................................................................... 39 Cost M odel....................................................................................................... 39 Econom y .......................................................................................................... 39 vi Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 40 Heat Gasifiers......................................................................................................... 41 Cost M odel ....................................................................................................... 41 Economy .......................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 41 6. Conclusions and Recom m endations ................................................................. 49 Sm all-Scale Power Gasifiers.................................................................................. 49 Comm ercial Status of Sm all-Scale Power Gasifiers........................................ 49 Power Gasifier Econom ics ............................................................................... 50 Equipm ent Perform ance................................................................................... 51 Equipm ent Reliability ...................................................................................... 51 Equipment Qu ality ........................................................................................... 51 Operating Personnel......................................................................................... 52 Environmental Pollution .................................................................................. 52 Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 53 A Long-Term Approach to Technology Transfer............................................ 53 Heat Gasifiers......................................................................................................... 54 Annex: Criteria for Prelim inary Project Identification .......................................... 55 Using the Checklist ................................................................................................ 55 Capacity Range ...................................................................................................... 55 Biom ass Fuels ........................................................................................................ 57 Sustainable Fuel Supply ......................................................................................... 57 Investment .............................................................................................................. 57 Local Conditions .................................................................................................... 57 Fuel Costs......................................................................................................... 57 Operating Hours ............................................................................................... 58 Load Factor ...................................................................................................... 58 Reliability ............................................................................................................... 59 Labor ...................................................................................................................... 59 Other Projects......................................................................................................... 60 Detailed Evaluation ................................................................................................ 60 viI R efe re n ces .................................................................................................................. 6 1 Tables 2.1 Typical Gas Composition for Different Fuels and Reactor Types .......................... 7 2.2 Gasification Systems and Gasifier Fuels ................................................................ 13 3.1 Overview of the Parameters Measured during Baseline Performance Monitoring ........................................................... 18 3.2 B G M P Sites and Plants ........................................................................................... 20 3.3 Operational Status of Plants from Overall Country Surveys .................................. 22 4.1 Comparison of Manufacturer-Stated and BGMP-Measured Performance for D ifferent Plants .................................................................................................... 30 4.2 Factors Affecting Life Spans of Producer Gas Engines and Gasifiers at Six B G M P-M onitored Sites ....................................................................................... 33 4.3 Comparison of Toxic Effluents at Two Gasifier Sites ............................................ 36 4.4 Performance of Gasifier Plants ............................................................................... 36 5.1 BGMP Gasifier Costs and Profitability .................................................................. 38 5.2 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Small Diesel and Biomass Gasifier Power Plants (High Cost Systems) ........................................................ 42 5.3 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Small Diesel and Biomass Gasifier Power Plants (Low Cost Systems) ......................................................... 43 5.4 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Heat Gasification Plants ............... 44 Al.1 Background Information to the Checklist When Considering B iom ass G asification ........................................................................................... 58 Figures 2.1 Three Types of Fixed-Bed Gasifiers ....................................................................... 6 2.2 Open-Core Rice Husk Reactor Developed in China ............................................... 8 2.3 The Ferrocement Charcoal Gasifier Developed at AIT, Bangkok .......................... 9 2.4 A Gasifier System for Power Generation ............................................................... 11 2.5 A Gasifier System for Heat Generation .................................................................. 11 2.6 Comparison of Petroleum Prices with Biomass Fuels on Energy B asis, Indonesia, 1990 ............................................................................. 14 5.1 Break-Even Diesel Price: Gasifier Systems Using Wood ....................................... 45 5.2 Break-Even Diesel Price: Gasifier Systems Using Charcoal or Rice Husks ........... 46 viii 5.3 Break-Even Fuel Oil Price: Low Cost Heat Gasifier Systems Using Wood ........... 47 AL1 Decision Tree for Small-Scale Biomass Gasifier Projects ................................... 56 ix Foreword This contribution to the World Bank Technical Papers, Energy Series, is the result of an ESMAP project to assess status of biomass gasification technologies and their applicability in developing countries. ESMAP, the joint United Nations Development Programme/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, was established in 1983 to provide advice and technical assistance on sustainable energy to developing countries and is administered by the Industry and Energy Department of the World Bank. The four-year biomass research effort (1986-90) monitored gasifier operations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and compiled uniform data on the gasifiers' performance, economics, safety, and public acceptability. The report reviews the cost-effectiveness of gasifier systems, scope of applications, conditions for implementation, and potential environmental implications. Biomass gasifiers have a long history and substantial future potential. First used commercially in the 19th century, the technology has seen service only sporadically in the 20th--chiefly to compensate for wartime shortages of petroleum-based fuels. The energy crises of the last 20 to 25 years, however, have rekindled interest in biomass gasification, particularly in developing countries seeking the potential savings from generating energy from plentiful, domestic waste products-such as forest- and wood- industry residues, rice hulls, senescent rubber trees, and coconut husks-instead of from expensive, imported diesel and fuel oil. Self-contained biomass gasification units have been seen as appropriate for areas remote from traditional energy supplies and have generally aimed at process-heat generation and small-scale power generation. Whether the specific technologies for biomass gasification-many of them conceived and manufactured in the industrial countries-could function efficiently and economically using the natural and human resources available in developing countries was largely untested when this monitoring program began, and few countries had the information they needed to select the appropriate and reliable technologies. The field data collected and analyzed by the program indicate that the commercial potential for heat gasifiers is significant but that for power gasifiers is presently more limited. Like many studies in the Energy Series, the report reveals that local capacity to operate, repair, and maintain the systems is essential. Expanded use of gasifiers will also depend on the availability of more flexible equipment and better comparative fuel-price economics. In the meantime, this report provides objective on-site performance data-as against manufacturers' claims-that can serve as a guide for those interested in advancing the efficient technical use of local energy sources in developing counJi,s. Richard S\rn Director Industry and Energy Department xl Abstract This document is the final report of the Biomass Gasification Monitoring Program (BGMP) sponsored by ESMAP (the joint United Nations Development Programme/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme) and administered by the World Bank Industry and Energy Department. The four-year biomass monitoring program (1986-90) compiled uniform data on the performance, economics, safety, and public acceptability of biomass gasifiers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The present report summarizes data obtained from field reports submitted during the life of the monitoring program and synthesizes the insights gained from the program as a whole. As the first comprehensive review of the state of the art of biomass gasification in developing countries, the report is intended as a reference manual and guide for policymakers, planners, investors, and entrepreneurs. The report begins by explaining the revival of worldwide interest in biomass gasification for developing countries during the 1970s and 1980s as well as the rationale for the monitoring program. It continues, in chapter 2, by discussing the technical, commercial, economic, pollution, health, and safety aspects of biomass gasification technology. The methods used by the BGMP, the gasifiers monitored, and the results of the monitoring are described in chapter 3. The performance aspects of the technology, as revealed by the BGMP data, are discussed and analyzed in chapter 4; the BGMP data are also compared with the equipment manufacturers' specifications. Insights on the costs and economics of the use of biomass gasifiers in developing countries are provided in the following chapter. The report summaries the project's conclusions about the value added by biomass gasifiers, costs and economics of gasification, and availability and reliability of gasification equipment in chapter 6. That chapter also includes suggestions for research and development work that may improve the competitiveness of the technology versus the use of prime movers fueled by petroleum derivatives and on the type of technology most likely to result in successful projects. A final chapter contains a "checklist," including background information, that could serve as a quick evaluation instrument for assessing the viability and applicability of proposed biomass gasifier projects. xiii Acknowledgments With the completion of field monitoring activities in 1990, the ESMAP-sponsored UNDP/World Bank Small-Scale Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme (BGMP) effectively finished. The program produced about 20 technical reports on individual gasifiers and an interim technical overview. The reports contain a wealth of new data on the technical and operational aspects of biomass gasifier technology, as well as detailed and hitherto unavailable information on the feasibility and costs of using biomass gasification plants in developing countries. This report was developed in cooperation with Matthew Mendis, first ESMAP task manager; Willem Floor, second and last task manager; Prof. Ruben A. Garcia, manager of the Philippines program; Dr. Pompilio Furtado, manager of the Brazil program; Dr. Sasjomo Saswinadi, manager of the Indonesia program; and Mr. Ton Zijp, manager of the Africa and Pacific program. I would like to thank Robert van der Plas of the Power Development Division, Industry and Energy Department, for reviewing the paper. Thanks are also expressed to Mr. Tony Deamer, Vila Motors, Efate Island, Vanuatu; Mr. W. van Essen, Biomass Technology Group, Enschede, The Netherlands; Dr. S. Gendron, Technology for Development Division, Ministry of National Development, Seychelles; Mr. Z. Kizozo, Alternative Energy Department, Energies des Grands Lacs, Bujumbura, Burundi; Mr. Harrie Knoef, Biomass Technology Group, Enschede, The Netherlands; Mr. Bob Lloyd, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji; Mr. Rainer Loof, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand; Mr. Rod S. Newell, Onesua High School, Efate Island, Vanuatu; and Mr. R. Weber, Technology and Development Division, Ministry of National Development, Seychelles. XV Abbreviations and Symbols AFME Agence Frangaise pour la Maitrise de l'Energie (France) AIT Asian Institute of Technology BEDP break-even diesel fuel price BGMP UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme BOD biological oxygen demand CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CH4 methane CRE Center for Research on Energy of the Institute of Technology in Bandung DG Directorate General DGIS Directoraat-Generaal voor Internationale Samenwerking (Netherlands) EC European Community ESMAP Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme GTZ Gesellschaft fUr Technische Zusammenarbeit (Germany) H2 hydrogen ITB Institute of Technology in Bandung ITB/TK Department of Chemical Engineering of ITB IC Internal combustion engine J joule kcal kilocalorie kg kilogram kJ kilojoule kWh kilowatt-hour kWel kilowatt electric kWme kilowatt mechanic kWth kilowatt thermal kWhel kilowatt-hour electric kWhme kilowatt-hour mechanic kWhth kilowatt-hour thermal I liter MJ megajoule MWel megawatt electric MWth megawatt thermal xvi mg milligram Nm3 normal cubic meter N2 nitrogen n.a. not applicable n.m. not measurable n.s. not stated ppm parts per million PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PREP Pacific Regional Energy Programme SIDA Swedish International Development Authority SPEC South Pacific Bureau for Eccnomic Cooperation UNDP United Nations Development Programme U.S.AID United States Agency for International Development US$ U.S. dollar Vatu Vanuatu currency (1 Vatu equals 0.01 US$). xvii 1 Biomass Gasifiers: An Old and New Technology The basic principles of biomass gasification have been known since the late 18th century. Commercial applications were first recorded in 1830. By 1850, large parts of London had gas lights, and an established industry had grown up using "heat gasifiers" to make "producer gas," mainly from coal and biomass fuels, to supply the lights. In about 1881, producer gas was used for the first time to power an internal combustion engine; thus, the "power gasifier" was introduced. By the 1920s, producer gas systems for operating stationary engines as well as trucks, tractors, and automobiles were demonstrated in Europe and elsewhere. However, because they were relatively inconvenient and unreliable, they failed to gain widespread acceptance and soon fell out of use. During World War II, biomass power gasifiers reappeared in force in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Australia. The cause was the general scarcity of petroleum fuels. In Europe alone, almost a million gasifier-powered vehicles helped to keep basic transport systems running. In most cases, the gasifiers were fueled by charcoal or wood. Again, however, most of the systems mobilized by the exigencies of war were readily abandoned with the return of peace and the renewed availability of relatively inexpensive petroleum fuels. The energy crises of the 1970s and 1980s appear to have rekindled interest in biomass gasification. Again, a primary attraction has been the potential of biomass gasification to substitute for petroleum products. Another factor in the renewed interest in biomass gasification has been the increased energy demand of developing countries. Because of its long track record, biomass gasification is considered a mature and workable technology. Hence, as the high costs of gasoline and diesel oil have come to be seen as important constraints on modernization and development in many developing countries, biomass gasification has come to be perceived as an viable alternative to decentralized small-scale industrial and utility energy generation wherever a sustainable and affordable supply of fuelwood and agricultural residues is available. 1 2 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Typical developing-country applications might include using producer gas from power gasifiers as a substitute for petroleum fuels in the standard gasoline or diesel engines that are commonly used in developing countries for electric power production and water pumping or in local industries (e.g., sawmills, maize mills, and workshops). In addition, the gas from heat gasifiers can be used in standard heat appliances such as agricultural dryers and cement, lime, or brick kilns. Initiatives to Promote Use of Biomass Gasification The renewed possibilities for biomass gasification seen in the 1970s and early 1980s led to a number of initiatives to demonstrate the potential benefits of introducing biomass gasifiers in developing countries. It was seen that dissemination of the gasifiers in developing countries could reduce fuel costs for small-scale power or heat generation in remote areas and that it could improve the reliability of fuel supply by making isolated rural industries or communities more self-reliant. By the early 1980s, more than 15 manufacturers (mainly in Europe and North America) were offering wood and charcoal power gasifiers in capacities up to about 250 kW,I. In addition, agencies such as DGIS (Directoraat Generaal voor Internationale Samenwerking) of the Netherlands, GTZ (Gesellschaft fUr Technische Zusammenarbeit) of Germany, AFME (Agence Franqaise pour la Maitrise de 'Energie), SIDA (Swedish International Development Authority), and DGI of the European Community were financing the installation of test and demonstration biomass power systems in many developing countries. In addition, at least six developing countries (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand) had started power gasifier implementation programs of their own, based on locally developed technologies. In Brazil, India, Paraguay, and Thailand, the technology was promoted largely by local entrepreneurs and manufacturers. Heat gasifiers were investigated and demonstrated to a much lesser extent. None of the above-mentioned donor agencies sponsored research, and only in Latin America (Brazil and Uruguay) and to a much lesser extent in Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) were a number of industrial-scale heat gasifiers fueled by wood and charcoal designed, built, and operated commercially. The Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme With the revival of biomass gasification technologies and their promotion for use in developing countries already under way, the UNDP and the World Bank decided to assess the technology thoroughly before endorsing or initiating further dissemination in developing countries. The two organizations were well aware of the pitfalls of previous attempts to diffuse decentralized energy technologies. Hence, in July 1983, the UNDP/World Bank Small-Scale Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme (BGMP) was initiated to "collect uniform data on the actual field performance, economics, safety and public acceptability of biomass gasifiers currently operating in developing countries." Biomass Gasifiers: An Old and New Technology 3 No reliable or uniform standards or methods then existed for accurate evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasifiers. Data used in feasibility studies were usually based on hearsay or on unsubstantiated claims by manufacturers. Such feasibility studies as did exist were conducted on weakly supported assumptions, and technical evaluations were often based on theory rather than on hard data. The main objectives of the BGMP thus were to remedy the lack of basic information and standards with regard to biomass gasification. The specific goals were as follows: a. Determine whether gasifiers currently in use are meeting the technical, economic, and operational expectations of the users b. Identify the specific gasifier technologies most likely to ensure successful projects c. Identify aspects of the technology needing additional research and development d. Establish standards for evaluation of proposed gasifier projects e. Define more clearly the scope for the application of biomass gasifiers in developing countries. This volume attempts to provide answers to all of the above questions. 2 Biomass Gasification Technology Biomass gasification is a process in which solid biomass fuels are broken down by the use of heat in an oxygen-starved environment to produce a combustible gas. Biomass fuels conducive to gasification include dry materials such as wood, charcoal, rice husks, and coconut shells. Biomass gasification, in the sense used here, should be distinguished from biogas production, which uses wet organic feedstocks such as animal dung or stillage and works by means of microbiological action to generate methane gas. Components of a Biomass Gasification System A biomass gasification system consists primarily of a reactor or container into which fuel is fed along with a limited (less than stoichiometric, that required for complete combustion) supply of air. Heat for gasification is generated through partial combustion of the feed material. The resulting chemical breakdown of the fuel and internal reactions result in a combustible gas usually called producer gas. The heating value of this gas varies between 4.0 and 6.0 MJ/Nm3, or about 10 to 15 percent of the heating value of natural gas. Producer gas from different fuels and different gasifier types may considerably vary in composition (Table 2.1), but it consists always of a mixture of the combustible gases hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4) and the incombustible gases carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2). Because of the presence of CO, producer gas is toxic. In its raw form, the gas tends to be extremely dirty, containing significant quantities of tars, soot, ash, and water. Biomass gasification reactors are the vessels in which solid biomass is converted into producer gas. Because this report is limited to small-scale gasification, only reactors of the fixed-bed bed type are considered (larger biomass gasifiers are usually of the fluidized-bed or entrained-flow type). The different fixed-bed reactor types are often characterized by the direction of the gas flow through the reactor (upward, downward, or horizontal) or by the respective directions of the solid flow and gas stream (co-current, counter-current, or cross-current). As Figure 2.1 shows, the following three reactor types are usually distinguished in small- scale biomass gasification: updraft or counter-current reactor, downdraft or co-current reactor, and cross-draft or cross-current reactor. 5 6 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Figure 2.1 Three Types of Fixed-Bed Gasifiers Feed Gas ________ Drying zone Updraft or counter-current Distillation zone gasifier Reduction zone Hearth zone Grate Air Ash Feed Feed Drying zone Distillation zone Downdraft or co-current -- Hearth zone gasifier Air Air Reduction zone Grate Gas Ash pit Feed Drying zone Distillation zone Reduction zone Crossdraft gasifier - Burning char Hearth zone Grate Ash pit Biomass Gasification Technology 7 In all three reactor types, the biomass fuel is fed in at the top of the reactor and slowly moves down by gravity. During this downward movement, the fuel reacts with air (the gasification agent), which is supplied by the suction of a blower or an engine and is converted into combustible producer gas in a complex series of oxidation, reduction, and pyrolysis reactions. Ash is removed from the bottom of the reactor. Updraft gasifiers, using wood and other biomass, produce a hot (300-600* C) gas that contains large amounts of pyrolysis tars as well as ash and soot. The hot gas is suitable for direct combustion in a gas burner. In engine applications, the gas must be cooled, scoured of soot and ash, and cleaned of tars by condensation or another method. Because the tars represent a considerable part of the heating value of the original fuel, removing them gives this process a low energy efficiency. Downdraft gasifiers produce a hot (700-750'C), tar-free gas from wood and other biomass. After cooling and cleaning from ash and soot, the gas is suitable for use in internal combustion engines. Cross-draft gasifiers only produce a tar-free engine gas if fueled with good-quality charcoal (i.e., charcoal with a low content of volatile matter). Table 2.1 Typical Gas Composition for Different Fuels and Reactor Types Gasifier type Updraft: wood Downdraft: wood Cross-draft: charcoal (moisture in feed-% wet basis) (10-20) (10-20) (5-10) Hydrogen 8-14 12-20 5-10 Carbon monoxide 20-30 15-22 20-30 Methane 2-3 1-3 0.5-2 Carbon dioxide 5-10 8-15 2-8 Nitrogen 45-55 45-55 55-60 Oxygen 1-3 1-3 1-3 Moisture in gas Nm3 H20/Nm3 dry gas 0.20-0.30 0.06-0.12 <0.3 Tar in gas g/Nm3 dry gas 2-10 0.1-3 <0.3 Lower heating value 5.3-6.0 4.5-5.5 4.0-5.2 MJ/Nm3 dry gas Note: MJ = megajoule; Nm3 = normal cubic meter. The "Turn-Down Ratio" Concept in Downdraft Gasifiers In practice, downdraft reactors are not able to achieve tar-free gas production over the whole range of possible operating conditions. The lower the gas production (and the temperature) of the reactor, the more likely it is to produce quantities of tar that make the gas unacceptable for use in engines. This phenomenon is characterized by the value of the "turn-down ratio"-the minimum gas flow at which trouble-free operation with acceptable tar production is possible, expressed as a part of the maximum gas flow for which the reactor is designed. Thus, a turn-down ratio of 1:3 means that the minimum 8 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers gas flow at which the gas can be directly applied in an engine is equal to one-third of the maximum gas flow, which (in a well-matched gasifier/engine design) is also the gas flow at maximum power output of the engine. If the gas production from the reactor is smaller then this minimum value for long periods, the engine used in combination with the reactor is likely to be damaged or to be excessively worn from tar contamination. New Reactor Technologies Downdraft reactors of very specific design-for gasification of rice husks-have been developed in China. Hundreds of systems employing these "open-core" rice husk reactors (Figure 2.2) have been built in China since the mid-1960s. Since then, plants of this type were also installed in countries such as Mali and Surinam. Because of its simplicity, the reactor is currently further developed in India. The objective is to construct small reactors that can gasify wood and agricultural residues. The gas is to be used in small diesel engines for water pumping. Figure 2.2 Open-Core Rice Husk Reactor Developed in China 1,000 mm __ _ _ ___0_ __ _ _ -10 5- 4 14 Mrn 12 1 78 1. Fuel and air inlet 4. Gas outlet 7. Ash-settling pond 10. Cooling-water effluent 2. Cooling-water jacket 5. Rotary grate 8. Ash-removing tube 11. Gas 3. Furnace-grate reduction box 4. Gas outlet 9. Cooling-water intake 12. Ash Biomass Gasification Technology 9 The Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) has developed a reactor and gas-cleaning system for charcoal gasification (Figure 2.3) that is made almost entirely from ferrocement. This design aims at improving the financial competitiveness of gasification by minimizing the cost of the gasifier. In Thailand and in Indonesia, gasifiers of this type have been tested for prolonged periods. Figure 2.3 The Ferrocement Charcoal Gasifier Developed at AIT, Bangkok A A Fuel bunker G Metal shroud M Outer tank B Cast refractory reactor H Cylinder 1 (reactor) N Ashport C Charcoal fuel I Cylinder 2 (settling tank) 0 Ashport plug D Compacted rice husk ash J Cylinder 4 (cloth filter) P Cleaning chain E Refractory ring K Cylinder 5 (cloth filter) Q Aerodynamic fin F Cast refractory disc L Cylinder 6 (safety filter) 10 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Power Gasifiers and Heat Gasifiers Although it is not a high-quality fuel, producer gas can be used effectively in several applications. One application is to fuel internal combustion (IC) engines to produce shaft power for generating electricity, water pumping, grain milling, sawing of timber, and so on. In such applications, the gasification systems are called power gasifiers. Alternatively, producer gas can be used to fuel external burners to produce heat for boilers, dryers, ovens, or kilns. In such applications, the gasifier systems are referred to as heat gasifiers. Because they have different end-products, power and heat gasifiers are aimed at very different markets. Moreover, in many technical, economic and operational respects, power and heat gasifiers are rather different technologies. One of the principal technical differences is that power gasifiers must produce a very clean gas because of the strict fuel-quality demands of an IC engine. Thus, the resulting producer gas must be first filtered, cooled, and mixed in an elaborate gas-conditioning system, which is an integral part of a power gasifier. In contrast, producer gas combusted in external burners requires little or no gas conditioning. Because they do not require elaborate gas-cleaning systems, heat gasifiers are simpler to design and operate and are less costly compared with power gasifiers. The methods for describing the output of power and heat gasifiers also vary. The output of a power gasifier is usually stated in terms of the peak electric power (kWeI) that it can produce when connected to an engine generator set. In contrast, the output of a heat gasifier is usually stated as the thermal value (kWth) of the gas produced at maximum output. Typical configurations of power and heat gasifiers are shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.5. Types and Characteristics of Engines Using Producer Gas Spark-ignition or "Otto" engines as well as compression ignition or "Diesel" engines can be operated on producer gas. Spark-ignition engines can be operated on producer gas only. Diesel engines, however, must be operated on mixtures of diesel fuel and producer gas ("dual-fuel" or "pilot operation" mode). The latter requirement complicates the use of producer gas in diesel engines. The temperature of the gas influences the power output of a producer-gas engine. Highest power output is realized at lowest gas temperature. Thus, in power applications, it is advantageous to cool the gas as far as is practical. Cooling, however, allows vaporized tars in the gas to condense on engine parts such as inlet manifolds and valve stems. Also, soot and ash particles in the gas may form deposits in the engine. These phenomena will result in excessive engine wear, so in power applications, it is absolutely necessary to filter and clean the gas of soot, ash, and tar. Biomass Gasification Technology 11 Maximum Power The maximum engine power output of a producer gas engine is lower than the output of an equivalent engine operated on conventional liquid fuel, a phenomenon known as derating. The efficiency of a producer-gas engine, however, is still theoretically the same as that of an Otto or diesel engine. Depending on type and size, small Otto and diesel engines may have efficiencies in the range of 20 to 24 percent and 28 to 32 percent, respectively. Figure 2.4 A Gasifier System for Power Generation Biomass Air Gasifier Gas ---)pCooler / cleaner Engine 1 4 PoE AhDust Condensate Figure 2.5 A Gasifier System for Heat Generation Biomass Air ] Gasifier Gas - Burner - Process heat Ash 12 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Specific Fuel Consumption and System Efficiency The specific fuel consumption is defined as the weight of the fuel consumption per unit output and is therefore expressed in kilogram per unit output. For power gasifiers, the output may be measured in kilowatt hours electric (kWhe) or kilowatt hours mechanical (kWhme), depending on whether the system produces electricity or shaft power. The heat output of heat gasifiers may be measured in kilowatt hours thermal (kWhth), in megajoules (MJ), or in kilocalories (kcal). The overall system efficiency is defined as the ratio of the energy delivered by the system in the form of power and heat and the energy consumed by the system in the form of fuel and is mostly expressed as a percentage. Load Factor The load factor of an engine is here defined as the ratio of the actual power that is delivered and the energy that would have been delivered when the engine had run continuously at its rated power. Low load factors mean that the engine is underutilized. Low loads increase the specific fuel consumption and decrease engine efficiency. Biomass Fuels for Gasifiers A global review of the results of gasification projects leads to the conclusion that only a few biomass fuels have been adequately demonstrated in field operations. Several fuels can be considered acceptable for gasification, including lump charcoal, dry (less then 20 percent moisture content) wood blocks, dry coconut shells, and rice husks. Table 2.2 presents a matrix of acceptable fuels and gasification systems. Commercial Status of Small-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems Although a number of equipment manufacturers in Europe and the United States sell small-scale biomass power gasification systems, the actual number of such commercial units installed in developed and developing countries during the last five years is very small. In India and China, however, manufacturers of, respectively, small- scale wood power gasifiers and rice husk gasifiers appear to maintain at least some level of production. The decline of petroleum prices in the late 1980s has left only a small number of strictly commercial small-scale biomass power gasifiers operating globally. The majority of these are about a hundred rice-husk gasifiers that are reported in commercial operation, primarily in China. A declining number of charcoal power gasifiers continue in operation in Latin America, primarily in Brazil. A few wood-fueled power gasifiers are also in commercial operation, the largest at a Mennonite settlement in Paraguay. However, an increasing number of medium- and large-scale heat gasifiers are being installed at industrial sites in developing and developed countries. The commercial status of gasifiers may thus be summarized as follows: Biomass Gasification Technology 13 Commercially proven heat gasifiers are available, especially when the fuels are charcoal, wood, coconut shells and rice husks. These systems have acceptably high reliability. As such, direct comparisons of heat gasifiers against conventional systems are acceptable. * The recent track record for successful commercial power gasifiers is very limited and the reliability of those systems operating in the field is low compared with conventional options such as diesel-engine systems. Additional allowances for maintenance, spare parts, and operator salaries must be incorporated as part of power gasifier systems to compensate for lower reliability and performance compared with conventional systems. Table 2.2 Gasification Systems and Gasifier Fuels Biomass fuel Gasifier type Capacity range Application Power gasifiers Wood blocks Fixed-bed/down-draft < 500 kWei Electricity/shaft power Charcoal Fixed-bed/down-draft < 50 kWei Electricity/shaft power Fixed-bed/cross-draft Rice husks Fixed-bed/down-draft < 200 kWel Electricity/shaft power (also called Fixed- bed/open-core) Coconut shells Fixed-bed/down-draft < 500 kWeI Electricity/shaft power Heat gasifiers Wood/charcoal/ coconut Fixed-bed/cross-draft < 5 MWth Process heat shells Fixed-bed/up-draft Note: kWel = kilowatt electric; MWel = megawatt electric. Economics The economics of small-scale biomass gasifiers hinge on the savings that can be gained by switching from relatively high-cost petroleum fuels to low-cost biomass fuels. Fuel costs are the most significant component of operational costs for petroleum systems. The relatively high costs on an energy basis of petroleum fuels compared with biomass fuels is for the Indonesian situation illustrated in Figure 2.6. These potential fuel-cost savings must be measured against the additional capital costs, higher labor and other operation and maintenance costs, and lower conversion efficiencies of gasifier systems. One way to evaluate the trade-off between capital costs and operating costs is to compare the levelized costs of power produced by each system. This, along with an assessment of the financial and economic rate of return of the additional investment required for a gasifier system, when compared with a conventional petroleum system, can be used to judge the attractiveness of the alternatives. 14 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Figure 2.6 Comparison of Petroleum Prices with Biomass Fuels on Energy Basis, Indonesia, 1990 6' 5- 4. 2- Diesel Fuel oil Fuelwood Charcoal Coconut Rice husk Environmental Pollution Biomass gasification systems produce solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes that, if not adequately controlled, could harm the environment. Gaseous Emissions Gaseous emissions from biomass gasifiers are not a significant factor except possibly in the immediate vicinity of the plant, where CO leakages could be hazardous to workers. Compared with fossil-based systems, biomass gasifiers are relatively benign in their environmental emissions and produce no sulfur oxides, low levels of particulates, and (if they consume biomass produced on a sustainable basis) no net increase in global CO2 levels. Liquid Effluents The situation is not as encouraging when large quantities of liquid effluents are produced, as is the case with updraft gasifiers and gasification of highly volatile biomass fuels. The situation can be exacerbated if wet-gas cleaning systems are used; these can dramatically increase the volumes of tar-contaminated liquid effluents. In all cases, the liquid effluents can be highly toxic, and untreated disposal of them can contaminate local drinking water, kill fish, and have other potentially negative effects. At present, additional study is needed on treatment options for liquid effluents. Fortunately, most downdraft and cross-draft power gasification systems can be equipped with dry-gas clean-up systems, which drastically reduce the quantity of liquid effluent produced. As a result, effluents can be disposed of in a controlled and acceptable manner. The liquid effluent problem does not arise in heat gasifiers, because such systems usually combust the dirty hot producer gas completely, including the tarry components, which are gaseous at higher temperatures. Biomass Gasification Technology 15 Solid Wastes Solid wastes are primarily residue ash. Ash quantities may vary between 1 percent (wood) and 20 percent (rice husk) in weight of the original biomass fuel. In most cases, disposal of the ash is not a problem, and in some cases (e.g., with rice husks), the ash can even have a positive value for use by steel or cement industries. Health and Safety Operation of biomass gasifiers may result in exposure to toxic gaseous emissions (i.e., carbon monoxide); fire and explosion hazards; and toxic liquid effluents. Avoiding poisoning by toxic gases is mainly a matter of following sound workplace procedures, such as avoiding inhalation of the exhaust gas during startup and ensuring good ventilation of gas-filled vessels before personnel enter them for servicing and maintenance. Avoiding fires and explosions is also primarily a matter of following sound procedures. In addition, however, it is important that the system is designed so that any internal explosion that may occur can be relieved to avoid damage to the system. Avoiding contact with carcinogenic compounds in the condensates requires the use of protective gloves, special clothing, or both. It may be concluded that with proper operator training, equipment, and procedures, health and safety hazards can be held to acceptable levels or even eliminated. 3 The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme In an early stage of the BGMP, gasifier plants were selected for study. (For a detailed description of the BGMP criteria, see the UNDP/World Bank Guidelines 1985.) The first priority for study was commercially operated plants using commercially available technology with a more-or-less proven track record. Other considerations in selecting installations for monitoring related to variations in plant and input/output characteristics, such as plant capacity, reactor type, type of gas cleaning system, engine type, biomass fuel, and application (electricity, shaft power and/or heat). In addition, the program sought to identify variations in operational mode of the plants (i.e., load factors, fast and slow load variations) and the accessibility of the plants. Monitoring Methodology The detailed monitoring methodology used in the BGMP is presented in the monitoring guidelines document (1985). The monitoring procedures aimed at collecting data in a way that would allow for an evaluation of the system's performance in conditions that might differ from the ones prevailing at the actual site. Thus, a three- stage methodology was adopted. First, an equipment inventory was made, according to a standardized format. Second, a baseline, in-depth performance monitoring procedure was established (i.e., measurements and data collection were taken to establish the operation and economy of the system at that time). The measurements included quantification of system inputs and outputs as well as other system parameters for three feedstock moisture contents and three system loads. Table 3.1 gives an overview of the parameters measured during baseline performance monitoring and indicates how each parameter was measured. Third, operational data and experiences were monitored during an extended period according to standardized log sheets and performance reports. During the course of the monitoring it became clear that execution of the baseline or in-depth monitoring according to the guidelines was difficult, time-consuming, and 17 18 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Table 3.1 Overview of the Parameters Measured during Baseline Performance Monitoring Parameter Instrument or method Frequency I Ambient temperature Thermometer Per hour 2 Air relative humidity Air hygrometer Per day 3 Fuel input Scale Each filling 4 Fuel analysis Moisture content Oven drying, analytic balance Per day Bulk density Scale Per week Size distribution Sieves Per week Ash content Laboratory Higher heating value Laboratory Proximate analysis Laboratory Ultimate analysis Laboratory 5 Pressure loss, gasifier U-tube manometer Per hour 6 Gasifier outlet temperature Thermocouple, recorder Continuous 7 Pressure loss, filters Utube manometers Per hour 8 Temperature after cooler Bimetal thermometer Per hour 9 Gas flow Venturi, pressure transmitter Continuous 10 Gas heating value Gas calorimeter Continuous 11 Gas composition Orsat apparatus Per hour 12 Dust content in gas THT dust and tar sampler Each run 13 Tar content in gas THT dust and tar sampler Each run Soxhlett apparatus 14 Condensate analysis Each run pH, phenols, PAH, BOD Laboratory 15 Ash analysis Each run Carbon content Laboratory Ash melting point 16 Engine operating hours Operation timer Per run 17 Engine speed Rpm meter Per run 18 Auxiliary fuel consumption Cumulative flow meter Per run 19 System energy output for generators kWh-meter Per run for pumps turbine flow meter Per run 20 Auxiliary power input V, A, cos phi meter Per run 21 Exhaust gas temperature Bimetal thermometer Per hour 22 Exhaust gas composition Draeger tubes Per day Oxygen Carbon monoxide 23 Lubrication oil analysis Laboratory Per monitoring 24 Engine compression Compression gauge Per monitoring 25 Engine frequency Hz-meter Per hour 26 Engine power output kW, A, V, cos phi meter Per hour 27 CO on-site CO-meter Per day Note: BOD= biological oxygen demand; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme 19 expensive. It also was evident that many gasifiers in developing countries were operating not only for technical or economic reasons but because of policy and institutional issues. Therefore, to get a clearer picture of the situation in the field, a more general approach in at least a few characteristic developing countries was deemed necessary. This was achieved by executing two surveys aimed at establishing the operational status of all known gasifier plants. Monitored Plants and Sites The BGMP monitored small-scale biomass gasifiers in Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, Vanuatu, Mali, Seychelles, and Burundi. The program encountered some difficulty in identifying strictly commercial operating gasifier systems, in that many plants turned out to be subsidized in one way or another. An overview of the plants and sites monitored in accordance with the original BGMP guidelines and their basic characteristics is presented in Table 3.2. An overview of number and operational status of plants that resulted from overall surveys that were conducted at all known gasifier sites in Indonesia and in the Philippines is shown in Table 3.3. Indonesia A large number of parallel activities focusing on wood-gas power plants took place in Indonesia in the early 1980s. Some of the projects were based on imported equipment, others relied on foreign designs manufactured under license, and still others were based on local design and manufacturing with foreign technical support. The overall survey (Table 3.3), carried out in 1989 to establish the operational mode of known gasifiers, identified 49 projects. Of these, 16 were research or pilot activities. Of the remaining plants, all 24 power gasifiers must be classified as demonstration projects, wholly or partly financed by a foreign or national donor. None of those units could be considered truly commercial in the sense that the client paid the full price of the gasifier. Twenty-one power plants were operated with wood fuels, two with rice husks, and one with charcoal. The nine industrial heat gasifiers were operated on wood, on coconut shells, or on multiple or mixed fuels. All heat gasifier projects were purely commercial. The BGMP has performed in-depth monitoring of four power gasifiers and one heat gasifier (Table 3.2). The two generator sets in Balong and Sebubuk (respectively 20 and 30 kWel) used wood gasifiers in combination with, respectively, a dual-fuel diesel engine and an Otto engine. The Balong plant was designed and constructed by the Department of Chemical Engineering (ITB/TK) and the Center for Research on Energy (CRE) of the Institute of Technology in Bandung (ITB), with technical assistance from the Netherlands. The Sebubuk gasifier was of Italian design and manufacture. The third generator set, in Majalengka (15 kWel), used a rice husk gasifier of local ITB design in combination with a dual-fuel diesel engine. The fourth plant, in Lembang, used an Otto engine (10 kWme) equipped with a ferrocement downdraft open-core charcoal gasifier, as originally developed at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok, Thailand. Finally, BGMP monitored a rubber wood-fueled heat gasifier (600 kWth) in Rajamandala. 20 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Table 3.2 BGMP Sites and Plants Site Capacity Reactor Gas-cleaning system Engine type Biomass fuel Application Power Indonesia Balong 20 kWel downdraft cyclones, stone diesel rubber wood community rockwool, impinge- electricity ment filter Sebubuk 30 kWel downdraft spiral flow separator, Otto waste wood industrial scrubbers, fabric electricity filter Majalengka 15 kWel cross-draft cyclones, scrubbers, diesel rice husk community (open-core) coconut fiber electricity Lembang 10 kWel ferrocement bag filter Otto charcoal electricity downdraft Philippines Bago 28 kWme downdraft cyclone, scrubbers, oil diesel charcoal irrigation bath filter Bolo 38 kWme downdraft cyclone, scrubbers, oil diesel charcoal irrigation bath filter Brazil Itamarandiba 40 kWel cross-draft cyclone, paper filter Otto charcoal industrial electricity Chacara 23 kWel cross-draft cyclone, paper filter Otto charcoal irrigation Vanuatu Onesua 25 kWel downdraft cyclone, baffle filter, Otto wood community bag filter (leuceana) electricity Mali Dogofiri 160 kWel downdraft scrubbers, dry sponge Otto rice husk industrial (open-core) filter electricity Seychelles Mah6 35 kWel downdraft cyclone, scrubbers, Otto wood, coco- tl--tricity fabric filter nut shell/ husk Burundi Tora 36 kWel downdraft cyclone, scrubbers, oil diesel peat industrial bath filter electricity Heat Indonesia Rajamandala 600 kWth downdraft no gas cleaning n.a. wood industrial heat Brazil Espara Feliz 2 x downdraft no gas cleaning n.a. wood industrial heat 670 kWth St. Luzia 4,060 kWth up-draft no gas cleaning n.a. charcoal industrial heat n.a. = not applicable. Note: kWel= kilowatt electric; kWme= kilowatt mechanic; kWth= kilowatt thermal. The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme 21 This unit was used for cocoa-bean drying and was constructed by Guthrie in Malaysia under license from New Zealand. Power Gasifier Results. The overall survey indicated that in 1989 about half of the (demonstration type) power gasifiers were not working. Nonoperational installations were found both in projects using imported equipment as well as in projects based on gasifiers of local design and manufacture. The in-depth monitoring indicated that the projects succeeded or failed for mixed technical, financial, and institutional reasons. The technical factors were as follows: * The in-depth monitoring of the two wood gasifiers showed that in both projects, major technical modifications and improvements were necessary before the plants functioned satisfactorily. After this, especially the Balong unit operated quite reliably during more than 11,000 uptime hours. No long intermediate shutdown periods are reported. The recorded technical availability of this plant in 1988 was 85 percent. The locally developed small-scale rice-husk gasifiers never reached that stage. This equipment is clearly in need of further technical development work before it can be demonstrated or marketed. * The AIT ferrocement charcoal gasifier plant showed no initial problems or shortcomings, and no major modifications were necessary. However, the maximum capacity of the current design may be limited to about 20 kWei. The financial factors were as follows: * For reasons of costs, maintenance, service, and spare parts availability, the national Indonesian projects worked with locally manufactured dual-fuel diesel engines. The BGMP results indicate that especially when operated with less experienced or less motivated personnel, dual-fuel systems tended to consume more diesel fuel than expected. This factor served to decrease the sometimes already marginal financial viability of the project, itself caused mainly by short operation times and low load factors. However, when conditions on site are favorable, financially feasible dual-fuel operation is possible, as indicated by the monitoring results from the Balong project. * Indonesian authorities and gasifier customers alike rightly considered the high cost of imported gasifiers and spare parts as prohibitive for commercial exploitation. * CRE found the AIT ferrocement gasifier interesting because of its low capital cost. However, the relatively high price of charcoal, compared with commercial liquid fuels, made the current design not financially viable in the Indonesian context. Therefore, the technology was never commercially introduced or marketed. The institutional factors were as follows: 22 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers When comparing the good performance of the Balong plant with less favorable experiences from other installations equipped with similar technology, the extensive technical support provided by ITB/TK during the initial year(s) of the project appears to be the major institutional factor. It created motivated staff who were willing and able to operate the gasifier. Later plants based on ITB designs have not received similar technical support because of limited personnel resources and logistical problems. * In projects using imported technology, initial technical problems often resulted in prolonged shutdown of the equipment to await foreign technicians, equipment, and spare parts. The long periods of inactivity discouraged gasifier owners and operators alike. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that many imported gasifiers were installed in situations without commercial significance. This is illustrated by the case of the 30 kWe Sebubuk plant, installed in a sawmill generating 3 MW, by means of diesel gensets. Under such circumstances, the impact of the fuel cost savings realized through gasifier operation is doubtful. Table 3.3 Operational Status of Plants from Overall Country Surveys Operating Country Gasifier type Installed Operating (% of total) Indonesia power 24 11 46 Indonesia heat 9 7 78 Indonesia research/pilot 16 Philippines power 297 15 5 Philippines power 248 3 1 Heat Gasifier Results. The overall gasifier survey of 1989 shows that at the time seven out of nine plants were functioning. The reasonable percentage of operating plants, serves to indicate that this technology is generally technically proven and reliable. This impression was confirmed by the outcome of the in-depth monitoring that was executed at a cocoa bean drying plant in Rajamandala. The monitoring report states that the plant worked technically satisfactorily and efficiently and that the drying costs using the heat gasifier were (marginally) lower compared with those of using a diesel oil burner. Philippines A program to commercialize locally designed and manufactured charcoal power gasifiers was initiated in the early 1980s by the Philippine government and supporte financially by U.S.AID. The program aimed at providing gasifier options in irrigati, rural electrification, and motive power for boats and trucks. A government-o' company (Gemcor) was set up for mass production of gasifiers. Under the pr nearly a thousand gasifiers were manufactured. The equipment went - The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme 23 agricultural cooperatives, who paid for it by means of a soft loan scheme. The two pump sets (30 to 40 kW shaft power) that were actually monitored used charcoal gasifiers in combination with dual-fuel diesel engines. Aside from this in-depth monitoring, the BGMP conducted quick surveys to establish the operational status of known power gasifiers in 1989 and 1990. The surveys (Table 3.3) showed that in 1989/1990 only 1 to 5 percent of the charcoal power gasifiers installed between 1983 and 1986 were still in use. This disappointing figure can be explained by examining the outcomes of the in-depth and operational monitoring. Those reports suggest a number of reasons for the project and program failure. Causes appear to be partly technical, partly financial, and partly institutional in nature and are summarized below. The technical reasons for failure are as follows. The in-depth monitoring indicates that the locally developed charcoal gasifier technology was insufficiently debugged. To reduce costs, no control or measuring equipment was installed, which made reliable operation of the gasifier difficult. Modifications were made as problems arose, leading to better and more reliable equipment over time. But poor plant maintenance, resulting in engine failure and in some cases permanent damage to engines, remained a problem for the duration of the project. The financial problems were several. In the period 1982-87, profound changes occurred in the relative prices of charcoal and diesel fuel, thus making charcoal gasification sometimes flatly unprofitable. Even in periods of low charcoal cost, most irrigation systems were not used sufficiently to cover gasifier capital costs from savings in diesel fuel costs. Poor operation and maintenance of plants were partly a result of the way operators were paid, which did not give them any direct incentive to maximize performance at minimum costs. On the institutional side, several shortcomings were apparent as well. To meet "political" installation dates, manufacture and installation of gasifiers was rushed. Thus, although sensible project identification, installation, and operating procedures were developed, they were often waived under political pressure. Plants often were installed in circumstances of doubtful technical and economic viability, and training of operators was hasty and inadequate, leading to poor operation and maintenance practices. Finally, the dual-fuel systems did not completely displace the use of diesel fuel, leaving the users with the inconvenience of procuring two fuels. Brazil The four installations selected for in-depth monitoring in Brazil were all financed by the private sector, without foreign donor assistance or local subsidy. The BGM' monitored two power gasification systems and two heat gasifiers. The outcom, representative of the performance of many more installations of the same type. Power Gasifiers. The two power systems (20 to 40 kWel) used cross charcoal gasifiers in combination with Otto engines. One system was used for electrit- 24 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers generation, the other for water pumping. The BGMP established that both systems suffered from operational problems, mainly caused by the use of a charcoal of unsuitable quality, the use of plant construction materials of insufficient heat resistance and consequently short lifetime, and inadequate matching of gasifier and engine capacity. When in operation, the system had a maximum power output considerably lower than expected and service and maintenance costs higher than anticipated. This may have been due in part to less-motivated operators. Those problems and shortcomings soon resulted in unfavorable economics, which were exacerbated by rising charcoal prices. Therefore, operation of the gasifier was eventually abandoned. Heat Gasifiers. One heat gasifier (4.0 MWth) used charcoal and produced gas that was used to fuel ceramic tunnel kilns. No operational problems were reported, but after four years of operation the system was closed down. The cause was the unfavorable economics that followed a relative change in the price of charcoal and fuel oil. At the second site, two wood-fueled heat gasifiers of 670 kWth each produced gas for the drying of kaolin. This system was a technical and financial success. Kaolin drying with producer gas cost only one-third of drying with fuel oil. Vanuatu As a result of the Pacific Regional Energy Programme (PREP), a generator set equipped with a wood gasifier and a gas (Otto) engine was installed in 1986 at Onesua High School, located in a rural area of Efate island in Vanuatu (South Pacific). PREP was a technology demonstration program financed from the EC/LOME II budget and co- executed by the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC) in Suva, Fiji. The 25 kWe plant was designed and built in the Netherlands. The complete installation (inclusive of transport, installation, and training) was paid for by PREP, and the school only had to carry the operating costs. By coincidence, an expatriate engineer with considerable experience in operating and maintaining gasifiers was based in Onesua during 1987 and 1988 and was able to assist in early operational troubleshooting. The plant was monitored by BGMP straight after installation, and has been revisited several times for operational monitoring. In its first year, the Onesua plant had significant technical problems. Several parts of the reactor and the gas-cleaning section had to be redesigned or modified because of malfunctioning and excessive wear. The expatriate gasification engineer helped the project execute some of the modifications on site. However, the plant has also been down for considerable periods awaiting spare parts from the Netherlands. After a break- in period of about a year and a half, the gasifier performed surprisingly well. Since 1989, the unit has been operated solely by local Vanuatu personnel, with very limited technical backstopping. In 1992, a visit established that the plant had been operating for over 9,000 hours and was still running well. Because Onesua High School paid only for operational costs, the plant was financially very successful from the school's standpoint. The BGMP operational monitoring report states that "the monthly cost of operating the gasifier was less than 10 The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme 25 percent of equivalent diesel operation." Cash savings were to be measured in millions of Vatu per year (I Vatu equals 0.01 US$). The magnitude of the profit is somewhat misleading, however, because the school used free student labor for establishing a leuceana wood plantation and for fuelwood harvesting and preparation. However, it was established that the operating cost of a gasifier, with all labor paid for, amounted to only 50 percent of the cost of diesel operation on Efate island and to about 30 percent on outer islands. Real electricity costs (including capital charges) of the Onesua plant are high compared with a conventional diesel alternative. This is partly because of the very high cost of the imported Dutch installation. The success of the Onesua unit may be explained by the following factors, which are again mixed technical, financial, and institutional. On the technical side, the prolonged presence of the expatriate gasifier engineer was essential in identifying and finding solutions for the initial technical problems, which were caused by insufficiently developed and tested equipment, and in convincing the local operator, after the debugging was over, that a reasonable effort to follow strict procedures and execute logical service and maintenance operations would result in efficient and profitable gasifier operation. Among the positive economic aspects of the project was the fact that the school management, from an early stage, was aware of the great financial benefits that could be realized through gasification and therefore made it a point to support the national gasifier operator, who was highly motivated by this attitude and showed great persistence during the difficult initial stage. Institutional factors also played a role in the positive outcome. During the major part of the PREP, SPEC employed an (EC funded) official specially charged with backstopping of projects. In the Onesua project this has worked exceptionally well. His presence and persistency enabled Onesua project personnel to keep in contact with the Dutch manufacturer, discuss possible equipment modifications, and press for speedy delivery of spare and modified parts. Mali By the mid-1960s, as a result of cooperation between the governments of Mali and China, rice husk gasifiers were installed at large, government-owned rice mills in Mali. The BGMP monitored a 160-kWel generator set, situated near the remote village of Dogofiri, that used a rice husk gasifier in combination with a large Otto engine. The actual maximum power demand on site was only 90 kWeI. The electricity produced by the gasifier plant was the major power source for the mill and compound. The plant (one of three originally commissioned in Mali) was built in and imported from China, where this type of gasification technology was developed and commercialized. Installation and commissioning were effected by Chinese personnel, and Chinese engineers apparently were on site for at least a year after startup, presumably to train the Malinese operators. 26 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers The Dogofiri rice husk gasifier was installed in 1967 and had accumulated more than 55,000 hours of operation. In the 20 years since startup, a number of major technical problems were encountered, and the plant was down for prolonged periods (mainly while awaiting spare parts from China), but the local Malinese technicians and operators have consistently restored the plant to working condition, with overall availability of the unit since 1968 apparently about 90 percent. The plants in Mali cannot be considered truly commercial because of the soft conditions under which the government of China made the gasifiers available. In practice, this meant that the rice mill management only considered operation and maintenance costs in comparing gasifier operation with diesel operation or connection to the local grid. On this basis, gasifier operation is cost efficient. However, when all costs are taken into account, the cost of power production on site (US$0.2/kWh) by means of gasifier is more or less the same as for diesel power generation. It may be noted, however, that the relatively high cost of gasifier power is attributable mainly to the fairly high plant cost quoted to BGMP by the Chinese manufacturer. The BGMP monitoring report suggests that the prolonged successful operation of the Dogofiri and other rice husk gasifiers in Mali results from a sound project setup, of which the main characteristics are thorough training of local personnel, highly profitable operation (at least from the viewpoint of the mill management), and consistent technical backup in the first and most difficult stage of project. Despite its apparent success in Mali, the rice husk gasification technology, as installed in Dogofiri, has at least two drawbacks that must be remedied before further implementation can be considered. The major problem with the technology is the gas- cleaning component, which contains a number of water scrubbers. These are not particularly efficient in removing tar from the gas stream and produce large amounts of scrubber water seriously contaminated with phenolic tars. The phenol content of the waste water from the scrubbers constitutes a clear environmental and health problem. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to devise and install equipment that either prevents scrubber waste water from being contaminated or safely and efficiently removes the tarry phenols from it. Second, the gas cleaning equipment has limited tar removal capacity, requiring labor-intensive engine maintenance that may adversely affect economy of operation. Seychelles In the early 1980s, Seychelles initiated a test program aimed at the use of mixtures of coconut husk and shell in small (15 to 40 kW,I) gasifier generator sets. The intention was to use the gasifiers on the outer islands, where this feedstock is abundantly available. Three gasifiers-from Switzerland, Sweden, and France, respectively-were provided through bilateral arrangements to the government of Seychelles and subsequently tested by local and BGMP personnel on the main island, Mah6. The test program revealed that none of the gasifiers could be made to work reliably on the mixed husk/shell fuel. No commercial gasifiers were ever installed by the government of Seychelles. To confirm The UNDP/World Bank Biomass Gasifier Monitoring Programme 27 that the fuel itself was the cause of the unreliability, BGMP also tested the gasifier from France using wood blocks as fuel. No serious problems were experienced during this test. Burundi By 1984, a 36 kW,1 dual-fuel diesel generator set equipped with a downdraft gasifier was installed at the Tora tea factory in Burundi. The installation was designed and built in Belgium, paid for by the EC/LOME II program and provided at no cost to the factory through the government of Burundi. Although the unit was tested only with woodfuel, it was sold as suitable also for peat gasification. BGMP monitoring established, however, that the plant could not be operated for any sustained period on Burundi peat, the only fuel available. This conclusion marked the end of biomass gasification efforts at Tora factory. Summary Power Gasifiers The introduction and demonstration of power gasifiers in developing countries has relied heavily on the support and subsidies of third parties (governments, donors, or both). Almost none of the projects identified became fully commercial, and most proved unsustainable for technical, financial/economic, and institutional reasons. Several power gasifier projects did become more or less successful, however. A comparison of four of them-Balong, Lembang, Onesua, and Dogofiri-reveals a number of common characteristics. Like the unsuccessful projects, the successful ones experienced many technical problems that plagued the initial year or two of operation. But unlike the unsuccessful projects, the successful ones were able to overcome these hurdles. The reasons were several. First, the management and operators alike were strongly motivated to make the gasifier work. In Balong, Onesua, and Dogofiri, this motivation had a financial background. In Lembang, the gasifier was operated by personnel hired by CRE, and both CRE and the operators considered it a challenge and an honor to make the gasifier operate properly. The other essential common element of success was that the operators on site could rely for a minimum of a year on speedy and reliable expert technical backstopping to advise on technical problems, to design and manufacture modified equipment if necessary, and to help secure a timely supply of spare and modified parts. Heat Gasifiers In contrast to the situation with power gasifiers, dissemination of heat gasification technology in developing countries was achieved without significant government or donor support. Almost all heat gasifier projects identified or monitored by the BGMP were technically successful. The few projects that were abandoned were terminated for clear financial reasons or problems of fuel provision. 4 Gasifier Performance Part of the first objective of the BGMP was to determine whether gasifiers are meeting the technical and operational expectations of those using the technology. As a way of comparing the users' initial expectations (i.e., essentially the manufacturer's specifications) with the users' experience of the technology's performance, and to compare different systems with one another, the following performance factors were considered: * Equipment performance. This measure comprises the key technical parameters that quantify the equipment performance of a gasification system and includes maximum power output, specific fuel consumption, system efficiency, and diesel fuel substitution (for dual-fuel diesel engines only). * Quality performance. The quality performance of a system is normally defined as the useful technical lifetime in normal operation, with specified normal maintenance. The BGMP included measurements and observations that were aimed at quantifying this type of quality for the producer gas engine and for the reactor and other nonmoving parts. * Operational performance. The operational performance was evaluated by monitoring labor, health and safety, and environmental parameters. Equipment Performance Table 4.1 summarizes equipment performance data measured on site during the baseline or in-depth monitoring as well as during operational monitoring (basic characteristics of the gasifiers that were monitored were presented in Table 3.2). Maximum Power Output The BGMP measurements established that Otto engines operating on producer gas must be derated by approximately 50 percent (i.e., the maximum power output of an Otto engine on producer gas was about half of the output on gasoline). For dual-fuel diesel engines, derating was variable; the maximum power output on dual fuel ranged from about 60 percent to about 90 percent of the output on diesel fuel only. For wood 29 30 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers gasifier power plants, the measured maximum power output was reasonably close to manufacturer-stated or rated maximum power. But this was far from true for the manufacturers' stated ratings of charcoal power gasifiers. Thus, the measured maximum power of the Philippine as well as of the Brazil plants was half or less of the values the manufacturers specified. The power output of the rice husk power gasifiers appears to be in good agreement with manufacturers' data. The power output of the peat power gasifier was low, but because the gasifier connected to this plant was not working at all on peat fuel, the output given in Table 4.1 is only representative of an air-starved diesel engine. The heat gasifiers that were monitored performed roughly in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. Table 4.1 Comparison of Manufacturer-Stated and BGMP-Measured Performance for Different Plants Maximum output Specific fuel consumption System efficiency (%) Site Manufacturer BGMP Manufacturer BGMP Manufacturer BGMP Wood power gasifiers Balong 20 kWel 15 kWel 1.33 kg/kWh 1.10 kg/kWh n.s 21.8 Sebubuk 30 kWei 26.2 kWei 1.30 ku/kWh 1.32 kg/kWh n.s 18.9 Onesua 27.5 kWel 23.7 kWel 1.25 kg/kWh 1.43 kg/kWh 19.0 16.2 Mah 35 kWel 35 kWel 1.33 kg/kWh 1.40 kg/kWh 23.8 16.0 Charcoal power gasifiers Lembang n.s 13 kWel n.s. 0.80 kg/kWh n.s 15 Bago 28.4 kWme 8.7 kWme 0.80 kg/kWh 0.8-1.1 kg/kWh n.s. 12-13 Bolo 38.8 kWme 16.3 kWme 0.80 kg/kWh 0.7-0.9 kg/kWh n.s 11-14 Itamarandiba 41 kWel 20 kWel n.s. 0.84-1.37 kg/kWh n.s 9.4 Chacara 23 kWme 11.5 kWme n.s. 4-10 kg/kWh n.s. <2 Rice husk power gasifiers Majalengka 15 kWei 15 kWel 2.5 k-/kWh 1.82 kg/kWh 12 14 Dogofiri 160 kWel > 95 kWe n.s 3.6 kg/kWh n.s. 7.1 Peat power gasi.er Tora 36 kWei 23 kWel n.s. n.m. n.s. n.m. Wood heat gasifiers Rajamandala n.s. 600 kWth n.s. 0.30 kg/kWh n.s 68 Espara Feliz 2 x 670 kWth 2 x 522 kWth 0.45 kg/kWh 0.37 kg/kWh 75 76 St. Luzia 4,060 kWth 3,480 kWth 0.17 kg/kWh 0. 16 kg/kWh 80 77 n.s. = not stated. n.m. = not measurable. Note: kWh = kilowatt-hour; kWel = kilowatt electric; kWie= kilowatt mechanic; kWth = kilowatt theri. Gasifier Performance 31 Specific Fuel Consumption Measured and manufacturer-specified values of the specific fuel consumption for different plants are given in Table 4.1. The BGMP data indicate that at full load, the specific wood consumption of wood gasifiers in combination with Otto engines is around 1.4 kg/kWh, which is marginally higher then the values stated by the gasifier manufacturers. Wood gasifiers operating with diesel engines (Balong) showed a somewhat lower specific wood consumption. The specific charcoal consumption of most charcoal gasifiers is measured at about 0.9 kg/kWh. This is somewhat higher than the values stated by the manufacturers. What happens to the specific fuel consumption when a gasification system is operated at very low loads is shown by the specific charcoal consumption (4 to 10 kg/kWh) of the Chacara plant in Brazil. The specific rice husk consumption of monitored rice husk gasifiers varied between 1.8 and 3.2 kg/kWh for different installations. Because of the low or even negative value of rice husks in most places and their abundant availability, the specific rice husk consumption is mostly not considered as an important decision factor in rice husk gasification. The measured specific fuel consumption of heat gasifiers was in good agreement with manufacturers data. System Efficiency Table 4.1 gives overall system efficiency values as measured by the BGMP. The systems employing wood gasifiers in combination with Otto engines showed full-load overall system efficiencies from 16 to 19 percent. These are reasonable values that are in good agreement with the theory. However, the values are low when compared with the efficiency ratings given by the manufacturers. For example, the Mahd gasifier was rated at about 24 percent efficiency by the manufacturer, but the de facto efficiency was only 16 percent. In practice, this means that the gasifier consumes about 50 percent more wood than the manufacturer's information indicates. Systems using wood gasifiers in combination with diesel engines show somewhat higher overall efficiencies because of the superior efficiency of the diesel engine compared with the Otto engine. In general, the charcoal systems show somewhat lower overall efficiencies than the wood systems. Values range between 10 and 15 percent. The intrinsic reason for this lower efficiency is the higher working temperature of charcoal gasifiers compared with wood gasifiers, which results in greater heat losses. Overall system efficiencies of rice husk gasifiers vary from 7 to 14 percent. The main reason for those low values is the incomplete burning of rice husks in this type of plant. Heat gasifiers show very reasonable efficiencies of 68 to 77 percent. In this respect it should be noted that the data for heat gasifiers in Table 4.1 refer to chemical energy in the gas. By adding the sensible heat in the hot gas to those values, the practical overall heat efficiency of heat gasifiers may be estimated as from 85 to 95 percent. 32 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Diesel Fuel Substitution The BGMP monitored five systems that used dual-fuel diesel engines in combination with gasifiers (see Table 3.2). Measured diesel fuel substitution at full engine load ranged from about 60 percent (Majalengka and Balong) to about 70 percent (Bago and Bolo). The diesel engine of the quasi-functioning peat gasifier plant at Tora consumed at full engine load in dual-fuel mode only 20 to 30 percent less diesel than it did in full-diesel mode. The BGMP also measured diesel fuel substitution values at varying engine load levels. The outcome of those measurements is somewhat ambiguous, but it appears that up to a point decreasing engine loads resulted in decreased relative diesel fuel consumption. This tendency was reversed, however, when the engine load was still further decreased. For example, at full engine load (15 kWel), the diesel engine of the Balong plant consumed about 60 percent less diesel fuel than it would have in full-diesel operation. At 66 percent load (10 kWeI) and 40 percent load (6 kWel), diesel fuel substitution was measured at, respectively, about 90 percent and about 75 percent. Those data indicate that the practical diesel fuel savings of dual-fuel diesel plants depend very much on the plant load pattern. Of all dual-fuel plants monitored by the BGMP, only the Balong unit has succeeded in realizing overall diesel fuel savings of about 70 percent. All other plants have done considerably worse. Quality Performance Producer Gas Engines BGMP requirements included several measurements that bear on the lifetime that can be expected for engines that are operated on producer gas, including the amount of dust and tar in the gas, after cleaning, at the gas inlet manifold of the engine and the amounts of metal in the engine oil. Below, results are presented for six different BGMP- monitored plants. The engines of the first four plants worked well, requiring only normal service and maintenance. But the engines of the latter two plants were subject to abnormal wear, requiring frequent oil changes and frequent replacement of parts. Dust Content Table 4.2 gives values of dust concentrations that were measured on site at the engine inlets of specific plants. It also provides the "acceptable" and "preferable" dust concentrations usually quoted by engine manufacturers as guaranteeing normal engine operation and lifetime. Data indicate that most plants produce a fairly dust-free gas, although the values are generally somewhat worse then requested by engine manufacturers. The gas filter unit of the Onesua plant was undoubtedly the best with respect to dust, whereas the amount of dust in the gas from the Dogofiri gasifier may be on the borderline of what is acceptable in the long run. Gasifier Performance 33 Table 4.2 Factors Affecting Life Spans of Producer Gas Engines and Gasifiers at Six BGMP-Monitored Sites Life-span factor Gas dust content Gas tar content Metal amount Site (mg/Nm3)a (mg/Nm3)b in engine oil Balong 120-150 120-150 low Sebubuk 40-80 100-400 low Onesua <5 < 10 low MaH6 10-30 500-700 medium Dogofiri 250-300 3,000-4,000 high Majalengka < 100 1,000-2,000 high Note: Nm3 = normal cubic meter. a < 50 (acceptable); < 5 (preferable). b< 100 (acceptable);< 50 (preferable). Tar Content Table 4.2 presents also values for measured and specified tar concentrations at the engine inlet manifolds. It indicates a big difference between the wood gasifiers (Balong, Sebubuk, Onesua, and Mah6) and the rice husk gasifiers (Dogofiri and Majalengka). For the first group, the tar concentrations were more or less in line with the values requested by engine manufacturers. Values measured for the Onesua plant were especially low, but the amount of tar entering the engine of the Mah6 plant was on the high side. The values for the rice husk gasifiers are 10 to 40 times higher than allowable, which means that the gas cleaning of those plants must be improved if long-term trouble-free engine operation is to be guaranteed. Engine Oil The results of the engine oil analyses, also detailed in Table 4.2, indicate that the oil of the engines from the rice husk gasifiers contained large amounts of metal (mainly iron and aluminum), indicating abnormal engine wear. Evaluation of the dust, tar, and engine oil measurements thus leads to the clear conclusion that the tar amount in the gas is the decisive factor governing wear and lifetime of producer gas engines. Turn-down Ratio The first four plants from Table 4.2 use downdraft reactors. This type of reactor is vulnerable to increased tar production at low load. Therefore, in order to establish the "turn-down ratio," the BGMP executed tar measurements at different reactor load levels. Those measurements indicated that all monitored downdraft reactors had acceptable turn- down ratios, of about 25 to 50 percent of full load. Gasifier and Other Nonmoving Parts The journals kept during operational monitoring show that almost all monitored power gasifier plants, especially during the startup period directly after commissioning, 34 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers were subject to a continuing series of more or less serious technical defects. Examples ranged from badly fitting fuel and ash removal covers, warped service hatches, leaking gaskets, and blocked valves, pipes, and filters to completely destroyed high-temperature sections and burned grates as well as accelerated corrosion of many parts of the reactor, gas-cleaning sections, and connecting piping. This suggests that the plants were not fully commercial and mature technical concepts. In fact, they were prototypes, developed and tested in the laboratory but not subjected for a sufficient time to the rigors of daily use. Manufacturers had received insufficient feedback on how to improve designs and materials in order to achieve sufficient quality. The BGMP reports indicate that this initial deficit in quality, especially with respect to factors such as resistance to heat and corrosion, appears to be a major reason for project failure. The small and large technical problems that were caused by the poor quality of materials and design resulted in unreliable operation that discouraged and demoralized operators and owners. Thus, only the small number of installations that had sufficient and sustained technical backup were able to overcome this quality problem by installing better-designed or -fabricated parts; it was they who thus could evolve to more or less trouble-free operation. Behind this scenario of trouble lies the fact that the commercial market for small- scale gasifiers has never been large enough to carry the expenses associated with development from prototype to mature commercial plant. Developers of gasifiers in developed and developing countries were able, however, to get grant money to design prototypes and to test them under operational circumstances. Under these circumstances, technical and operational problems were to be expected, especially because the performance of power gasifiers appears to be sensitive to relatively small changes in fuel- and energy-demand-related parameters. Even so, the results of the BGMP show that some small-scale wood gasifiers did achieve reliable and relatively trouble-free operation, and this means that experience and expertise in building and operating reliable, safe, and pollution-free wood gasifiers is now definitely available, at least in some locations. Operational Performance Labor The labor necessary for operating a gasification plant is considerably different from the input required for running an equivalent diesel engine. This difference is both quantitative and qualitative. During operation, the gasifier operator must frequently check a number of temperature and pressure meters and, based on this information, make decisions on actions such as adding new fuel, shaking the grate, deblocking filters, and adjusting valves. At the end of daily operation the operator must normally clean reactor and filters from ash and dust. Finally, the operator may be also in charge of fuel preparation and fuel quality control. Thus, unlike diesel engine operations in which the engine driver may also be given other, unrelated tasks, the running of a small-scale gasification system is basically a full-time job. Gasifier Performance 35 The operational history of the gasifiers monitored under the BGMP shows that not every operator is easily able to attain the required level of competence. Motivation and discipline are necessary, but the ability to react adequately to two or three input parameters and some basic technical skills are also crucial. Achieving this level of expertise and quality of operation appears to require not only an adequate initial training programme but also continuous technical backup for a period of at least a year. Recent developments in the automotive industry have resulted in mass-produced hardware and software that may greatly increase possibilities for automatic control of gasifiers. The auto industry manufactures and uses a number of inexpensive as well as temperature- and shock-resistant sensors and attenuators. In combination with their corresponding multi-parameter input logic software, such instruments could conceivably monitor and control gas engines and reactors, correspondingly reducing or eliminating the need for highly trained and experienced gasifier personnel. Such a development would improve the current economic competitiveness of small wood and charcoal gasifiers only marginally, but it would certainly increase the possibilities for speedy introduction of the technology. Health and Safety To assess the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning, the BGMP measured carbon monoxide concentrations at the gasifier site. On all sites except one, the concentrations were found to be around or below 20 parts per million (ppm), which means that there are no health signs or symptoms. At one site (Sebubuk), a CO concentration of 1,000 ppm was measured during gasifier refueling. Operators at this site complained of headaches. Another CO poisoning incident was reported from Itamarandiba, Brazil. It resulted from working on a hot reactor, in defiance of safety regulations. Gas explosions may occur in a reactor when, because of leakages, a hot combustible gas is mixed with sufficient air to cause spontaneous combustion. The heat gasification system of S. Lucia, Brazil, reported a number of gas explosions, but none caused fatalities or major equipment damage. Fires may result from the high surface temperatures of equipment and from sparks emitted during refueling, but no fires were recorded in any plant monitored by the BGMP. Environmental Pollution Biomass gasifiers may produce tar/phenol-containing condensates. The amounts produced depend on fuel and reactor type. Condensate analyses from different BGMP plants show a wide range of carcinogenic compounds in different concentrations. Not all those compounds are biodegradable. None of the plants that were monitored took special measures in dealing with the condensates. In all cases the pollutants were freely discharged to the enviLonment. None of the operators dealing with contaminated condensates used protective clothing or hand gloves. Table 4.3 compares the toxic effluent production at the Onesua downdraft wood gasifier with that at the Dogofiri open-core rice husk gasifier. The Onesua gasifier 36 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Table 4.3 Comparison of Toxic Effluents at Two Gasifier Sites Site Amount (1/hour) Phenols (mg/i) Phenols (kg/hour) Phenols (kg/kWhel) Onesuaa 0.5 100-200 0.05-0.10 0.002-0.004 Dogofirib 500 30 15 0.167 Note: kg = kilogram; kWhel = kilowatt-hour electric; I = liter. a Downdraft wood gasifier. bOpen-core rice-husk gasifier. produces small amounts of tar that are relatively easy to deal with. But the Dogofiri plant produces and discharges 500 liters of contaminated condensates, containing 15 kilograms of toxic phenols, each hour. Without the addition of effective effluent treatment facilities, the operation of this and similar plants gives rise to a major environmental pollution problem. Summary A summary of the performance that may be expected from different types of gasification plants is provided in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Performance of Gasifier Plants System Engine Specific fuel overall Diesel Engine Problems derating consumption efficiency savings life- Gasifier Health Environ- Gasifier type (%) a kg/kWh b ( b ( c time quality and safety mental Power gasifiers Wood Otto 50-60 1.4 > 16 n.a. 4 ? none minor Wood diesel 60-90 1.1 > 21 60-90 4 ? none minor Charcoal Otto 50 0.9 > 10 n.a. 4 ? none none Charcoal diesel 50-80 0.9 > 12 40-70 ? ? none none Rice husk Otto 50-60 > 3.5 > 7 n.a. ? 4 none major Rice husk diesel 60-90 > 2.0 > 12 50-75 - ? none major Peat diesel 20-50 high very very - X possible major low little probable Heat gasifiers Wood n.a. 0.30-0.35d > 75e n.a. n.a. + none none > 90f Charcoal n.a. 0.15-0.17d > 75e n.a. n.a. + none none > 90f 4 = normal; + = good; ? = doubtful; - = shortened; X bad; n.a. = not applicable. Note: kg = kilogram; kWh = kilowatt-hour. aMaximum engine output on producer gas as a percentage of maximum power output on gasoline/diesel. bAt full engine load. cAs a percentage of equivalent diesel engine fuel consumption at equivalent engine load. dFuel consumption per kWhth. eEfficiency with respect to chemical energy in the gas. fOverall heat energy efficiency. 5 Economics of Biomass Gasifiers Because producer gas is an alternative to gasoline or diesel, the financial and economic feasibility of biomass gasifiers depends on the cost savings that are realized by switching from those petroleum fuels to biomass. Those cost savings must be measured against the higher capital and operational costs of the biomass system. This chapter presents capital and operational costs for gasifier plants based on field data and a simple cost model. Comparison with the costs of petroleum-based alternatives results in break-even figures as a function of fuel prices and number of operating hours. It must be stressed that in practice the outcome of financial and economic evaluations depends also on the values of a number of other site-specific parameters. The figures presented below are therefore useful to illustrate trends, but they should not be taken as absolute. Financial Cost and Performance of BGMP Gasifiers Table 5.1 presents investment costs, as established during baseline monitoring, for the gasifier plants monitored by the BGMP. Because of the large differences, a distinction is made between gasifier power plants made in developed countries (imported systems), plants made in developing countries (local systems), and heat gasifiers. Although in practice the plants were paid for in many different currencies, for reasons of comparison, all costs have been converted to U.S. dollars (1990). So far as possible, the data take the following investments into account: * Cost of gasifier, fuel handling system, gas cleanup system, and all other related auxiliary and control equipment * Cost of diesel engine or Otto engine, including all auxiliary and control equipment * Cost of generator, water pump, or compressor * Cost of freight, insurance, installation, and civil works. The cost data indicate that imported power gasifiers tend to be more expensive then domestically manufactured systems. In both categories, however, the most expensive systems (Onesua and Balong, respectively) performed technically best. The 37 38 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Table 5.1 BGMP Gasifier Costs and Profitability Total investment Specific investment Operational costs Site US$ (1990) US$/kWel a US$/kWei b (US$/kWh) Profitability Imported power gasifiers Sebubuk 60,000 2,000 2,300 0.07 nil Onesua 100,000 3,600 4,200 0.09 nil Mah6 30,000 850 850 0.25 marginal Dogofiri 415,000 2,600 2,600 0.23 marginal Tora (15,000)c (425)c (650)c 0.12 nil Local power gasifiers Balong 23,000 1,150 1,550 0.08 marginal Majalengka 10,000 650 650 0.06 marginal Lembang 6,500 650 500 0.12 nil Bago 12,000 425 1,400 0.04 nil Bolo 12,000 300 750 0.03 nil Itamarandiba 8,000 200 400 0.11 nil Heat gasifiers Rajamandala 40,000 66d 65d 41.6e marginal Espara Feliz 30,000 25d 30d 3.27e profitable Santa Luzia 310,000 75d 90d nil Note: kWh = kilowatt-hour; kWel = kilowatt electric, a Specific investment cost based on manufacturer maximal power output. b Specific investment cost based on BGMP measured maximal power output. c Gasifier not properly working. d As kW thermal. e In US$ per tonne biomass fuel. exception was the ferrocement charcoal gasifier (Lembang), which was cheap but still had good performance. Although less price information is available for heat gasifiers, it appears that this equipment can also be divided between relatively low- and high-cost installations. Gasifier operating costs, as established for different plants during baseline monitoring, are presented in Table 5.1. Operating costs include personnel costs, fuel costs, and costs of service and maintenance. The data are thus very site-specific, but they still indicate the operational cost values that can be attained in power and heat gasifier operation. Table 5.1 also indicates that only one heat gasifier (Espara Feliz) operat, profitably compared with a liquid-fuel-system alternative. A few power plants we. marginally profitable. On most sites, operating a gasifier turned out to be more expensivL than using an equivalent diesel engine. The most important causes of unprofitability were the high cost of biomass fuel (especially charcoal), high capital cost, low diesel fuel savings, and low number of operating hours. Economics of Biomass Gasifiers 39 Power Gasifiers Cost Model A simple cost model was developed for a general investigation of power gasifier economics. The model is based on the BGMP observation that costs of locally manufactured acceptable power gasifiers (e.g., Lembang) can be considerably lower than those of imported plants (e.g., Onesua). Capital Costs. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present estimated installed investment for different power gasifiers of variable power output. Table 5.2 shows total investments for imported expensive systems, which were obtained by adding estimated costs of the different major parts of the plant. Estimates are based on actual data from the BGMP. Costs of freight, installation, and training were taken as part of the investment and therefore incorporated into the capital costs. Table 5.3 repeats the same exercise for local, inexpensive plants. Both tables also indicate effective investments required to establish equivalent diesel plants. For example, the installed cost of a 30 kW imported wood gasifier plant with an Otto engine is estimated at US$61,800 (US$2,060/kW), whereas a locally manufactured plant is estimated at US$31,380 (US$1,046/kW). The cost of an equivalent diesel engine plant is estimated at US$18,570 (US$619/kW). Operating Costs. Operating costs for both biomass and diesel systems were based on costs of fuel, labor, and maintenance measured by the BGMP. Economy Break-Even Diesel Fuel Price. One way to evaluate the viability of a gasification system is to establish the break-even diesel fuel price (BEDP). This is diesel fuel price at which an equivalent diesel engine system would produce power at the same cost as the gasifier system. Three important parameters influencing BEDP of gasifiers are gasifier cost, number of full-load operating hours per year, and cost of woodfuel. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show BEDP values for different gasifiers. Wood Gasifiers. Figure 5.1 establishes BEDP for low-cost wood gasifiers working with Otto engines. It presents data for gasifiers with three different capacities (10 kWel, 30 kWeI, and 100 kWel) and shows how BEDP values vary with the annual number of operating hours and the cost of woodfuel. For example, economic operation of a 10 kWel wood gasifier generator set working for 1,000 hours per year with free wood (US$0/tonne), results in a BEDP of US$600/tonne. On the other hand, a 100 kWel wood gasifier plant, operating for 4,000 hours per year and working with wood priced at US$20/tonne, has a BEDP of about US$225/tonne. When high-cost imported gasifier plants are used, BEDP values incre- enormously. For example, the BEDP of a 30 kW high-cost wood gasification system . is operated for 3,000 hours per year is approximately US$300/tonne higher than th equivalent BEDP of a low-cost gasifier plant. Retrofitting existing engines with gasifiers 40 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers is an option that can be realized at lower diesel prices. The BEDP of a 100 kWei plant operating 3,000 hours per year is about US$100/tonne lower than the BEDP of an equivalent low-cost gasifier system. Finally, the model shows that below 80 percent diesel substitution, dual-fuel diesel engine plants always have higher BEDPs than equivalent Otto plants. Only very high diesel substitutions (in excess of 80 percent), in combination with high wood costs and few operating hours, result in a BEDP that is somewhat lower than that of an equivalent Otto plant. Small Charcoal Gasifiers. Figure 5.2 presents BEDPs for two small 10 kWei charcoal gasifier plants locally made, from steel and ferrocement, respectively. At a charcoal cost of US$50/tonne, and at 4,000 operating hours, the BEDP of the steel system and the ferrocement system were about US$425/tonne and US$380/tonne, respectively. The small difference between the two systems follows from the relatively small cost difference (about 15 percent) between locally made steel charcoal gasifiers and ferrocement gasifiers. The BEDP of small-scale high-cost gasifier plants is again much higher than that of equivalent low-cost plants. At 3,000 operating hours, the BEDP increases by approximately US$250/tonne. Retrofitting decreases the BEDP by 200 to US$450/tonne depending on the number of operating hours. At diesel substitution rates below 80 percent, BEDPs from dual-fuel plants will always be higher then those of equivalent Otto plants. Rice Husk Gasifiers. Figure 5.2 also presents BEDP values for rice husk gasifier plants with outputs ranging from 30 kWe to 100 kWel. Low-cost rice husk gasification systems at 1,000 full-load operating hours have BEDPs of US$290/tonne to US$430/tonne. At 3,000 annual operating hours, the BEDP values for low-cost systems drop considerably, ranging from US$150/tonne to US$250/tonne. Conclusion At world market oil prices of approximately US$18/barrel, the cost price of diesel is about US$190/tonne. International and local transport costs can add a maximum of about US$60/tonne. Therefore, the maximum economic cost of diesel at most locations in the world is about US$250/tonne. These BEDP values make it clear that biomass gasification is not economically attractive at current oil prices. World market oil prices must rise by a factor one-and-a-half to two for biomass gasification to become attractive again. The possible exception to this statement may be low-cost wood and rice husk gasifiers, which may have BEDP values ranging from 150 to US$250/tonne. But low- cost rice husk gasification systems are not yet technically proven, and wood is not usually available for free. The situation may be different when biomass gasification is approached from a financial point of view, however. Local taxes may cause actual market prices for diesel oil to be substantially higher then US$250/tonne. At diesel oil market prices of US$400/tonne to US$500/tonne, then, low-cost gasifier plants that run for long periods, as in some industrial applications, may be financially viable. Economics of Biomass Gasifiers 41 Heat Gasifiers Cost Model Capital Costs. On basis of real heat gasifier costs (Table 5.1), a simple capital cost model was developed for heat gasifiers. Because of the fairly wide variations in specific investment found in practice, the model makes a distinction between low-cost and high-cost systems. Table 5.4 presents cost estimates for both categories at three output levels (500 kWth, 1,000 kWth, and 4,000 kWth). The model arrives at specific capital costs ranging from US$34/kWth to US$44/kWth for low-cost systems and US$130/kWth to US$152/kWth for high-cost systems. Those values are conservative. A Biomass Technology Group (1989) study documented that in Thailand complete heat gasification systems, including burner, have been delivered and installed for US$12 to 14/kWth. A World Bank study (ESMAP 1990) quotes local installed costs of heat gasifiers ranging from 250 kWth to 1,000 kWth at US$12.5/kWth. Operating Costs. Operating costs of heat gasifiers depend on fuel costs, labor costs, and costs of service and maintenance. On basis of the data collected by the BGMP, values have been estimated for costs. Economy Figure 5.3 presents the outcome of the model calculations for low-cost heat gasification systems at three different capacity levels, respectively, of 500 kWth, 1,000 kWth, and 4,000 kWth. It is also assumed that the overall system efficiency (gasifier/furnace) is 75 percent, whereas for an oil-fired system 85 percent is assumed. Such low-cost wood heat gasifiers, using wood at a cost of US$20/tonne and operating between 2,000 and 4,000 hours per year, appear to have BEDP values of about US$120/tonne. In equivalent operation, BEDP values for high-cost heat gasification systems are about US$160/tonne. At a wood cost of US$10/tonne, the low-cost and the high-cost systems have BEDP values, respectively, of about US$75/tonne and US$115/tonne. Conclusion At a world oil market price of about US$18/barrel, the price of fuel oil is approximately US$120/tonne. Adding US$60/tonne for international and local transport, the maximum economic price of fuel oil is about US$180/tonne. Some care must be taken in drawing too-optimistic conclusions because the technical feasibility of heat gasifiers has not been proven on a very large scale for all conditions assumed in the model. Nevertheless it appears that a considerable array of practical combinations of heat demand, gasifier cost, and wood fuel costs possible, specifically in the agro-industrial sector in developing countries, where biomass gasification for heat applications is attractive. Table 5.2 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Small Diesel and Biomass Gasifier Power Plants (High Cost Systems) Capital investment estimate Specific equipment cost (US$/kWet) Other investment Other cost and performance parameters Generator, Training, Freight, Maintenance Installed control, commis- installation, Total capital Economic System Number and service capacity Gasifier and sioning and other investment lifetime efficiency of cost (% per System type (kWel) system Engine electrical Total (US$) (US$/kWel) (US$/kWel) (years) (%) operators 1,000 hours) Diesel 10 n.a. 325 402 727 1,000 182 1,009 10 23 1 4 Full gas Charcoal/ferrocement 10 57 466 402 925 2,000 231 1,356 7 12 2 4 Charcoal/steel 10 1,001 466 402 1,868 2,000 467 2,535 7 12 2 4 Wood/steel 10 1,201 466 402 2,069 2,000 517 2,786 7 12 2 4 Dual fuel Charcoal/ferrocement 10 40 387 402 828 2,000 207 1,235 7 15 2 4 Charcoal/steel 10 731 387 402 1,520 2,000 380 2,100 7 15 2 4 to Wood/steel 10 877 387 402 1,666 2,000 416 2,282 7 15 2 4 Diesel 30 n.a. 210 259 469 1,000 117 619 10 25 1 4 Full gas Wood/steel 30 1,035 300 259 1,594 2,000 399 2,060 7 16 2 4 Rice husk/steel 30 1,553 300 259 2,112 2,000 528 2,707 7 9 3 4 Dual fuel Wood/steel 30 756 249 259 1,265 2,000 316 1,647 7 18 2 4 Rice husk/steel 30 1,134 249 259 1,643 2,000 411 2,120 7 10 3 4 Diesel 100 n.a. 130 160 290 1,000 72 372 10 28 1 4 Full gas Wood/steel 100 880 185 160 1,225 2,000 306 1,552 7 17 3 4 Rice husk/steel 100 1,320 185 160 1,665 2,000 416 2,102 7 10 4 4 Dual fuel Wood/steel 100 643 154 160 957 2,000 239 1,216 7 19 3 4 Rice husk/steel 100 964 154 160 1,278 2,000 320 1,618 7 11 4 4 Note: kWel = kilowatt electric. Table 5.3 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Small Diesel and Biomass Gasifier Power Plants (Low Cost Systems) Capital investment estimate Specific equipment cost (US$/kWel) Other investment Other cost and performance parameters Generator, Training, Freight, Total Maintenance Installed control, commis- installation, capital Economic System Number and service capacity Gasifier and sioning and other investment lifetime efficiency of cost (% per System type (kWel) system Engine electrical Total (US$) (US$/kWei) (US$/kWel) (years) (%) operators 1,000 hours) Diesel 10 n.a. 325 402 727 1,000 182 1,009 10 23 1 4 Full gas Charcoal/ferrocement 10 57 466 402 925 2,000 231 1,356 7 12 2 4 Charcoal/steel 10 217 466 402 1,085 2,000 271 1,556 7 12 2 4 Wood/steel 10 261 466 402 1,128 2,000 282 1,610 7 12 2 4 Dual fuel Charcoal/ferrocement 10 40 387 402 828 2,000 207 1,235 7 15 2 4 Charcoal/steel 10 159 387 402 947 2,000 237 1,384 7 15 2 4 Wood/steel 10 190 387 402 979 2,000 245 1,424 7 15 2 4 Diesel 30 n.a. 210 259 469 1,000 117 619 10 25 1 4 Full gas Wood/steel 30 225 300 259 784 2,000 196 1,046 7 16 2 4 Rice husk/steel 30 225 300 259 784 2,000 196 1,046 7 9 3 4 Dual fuel Wood/steel 30 164 249 259 672 2,000 168 907 7 18 2 4 Rice husk/steel 30 164 249 259 672 2,000 168 907 7 10 3 4 Diesel 100 n.a. 130 160 290 1,000 72 372 10 28 1 4 Full gas Wood/steel 100 159 185 160 505 2,000 126 651 7 17 3 4 Rice husk/steel 100 159 185 160 505 2,000 126 651 7 10 4 4 Dual fuel 2 2 Wood/steel 154 160 453 2,000 113 587 7 19 3 4 Rice husk/steel 154 160 453 2,000 113 587 7 11 4 4 Note: kWel = kilowatt electric. Table 5.4 Capital Costs and Performance Parameters for Heat Gasification Plants Minimum capital investment estimate Other cost and performance parameters Freight, Maintenance Installed Gasifier Fuel Total installation, Total capital Economic System Number and service capacity system handling equipment and other investment lifetime performance of cost (% per System type (kW[h) (USUWth) (US$IkWth) (USVkWth) (US$IkWlh) (USVkWth) (years) (%) operators 1,000 hours) High-cost system 500 117 0 117 35 152 12 85 2 2 1,000 106 0 106 32 138 12 85 3 2 4,000 88 12 100 30 130 12 85 3 2 Low-cost system 500 29 0 29 9 37 5 85 2 2 1,000 26 0 26 8 34 5 85 3 2 4,000 22 12 34 10 44 5 85 3 2 Note: kWt = kilowatt thermal. Economics of Biomass Gasifiers 45 Figure 5.1 Break-Even Diesel Price: Gasifier Systems Using Wood Wood gasifier, 10 kW Wood gasifier, 30 kW 31200 38000 1100 70 00ll 700 M 1000 0 900 600 700 0 1000 4000 30 10 - 0200 Wodoaifer-00k I 000 700- _ 0-z M I___ a, 0 0 __________ 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 0O 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Annual full power hours Annual full power hours Wood price 0 US/I -4- Wood price 20 US/I --- Wood price 40 U$/I Wood price 0 US/t + Wood price 20 U$/t c- Wood price 40 Ul --e- Wood price 60 U$/I X Wood price 80 U$/I -A, Wood price 100 US/I Wood price 60 US/t -X- Wood price 80 Us/l -A- Wood price 100 US/I Wood gasifier, 100 kW 78 00 ___ \ 0 0020 00 40 00 60 00 80 10W00W10k High cost rather than low cost gasifier system Required increase of diesel price for break-even: 1000 hours/year 600-700 USD/ton about 600 USD/ton about 600 USD/ton 3000 hours/year about 300 USD/ton about 300 USD/ton about 300 USD/ton Back-fitting to existing generator set: Reduction of diesel price for break-even: 1000 hours/year about 500 USD/ton about 350 USD/ton about 200 USD/ton 3000 hours/year about 200 USD/ton about 150 SD/ton about 100 USD/ton Dualfue raherthanful-ga sytem At 80% diesel substitution, dual-fuel is marginally more economic for high Anulbiomass fuel price and few annual operating hours. If less than 80% substitution is achieved, break-even diesel price will be higher. 46 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Figure 5.2 Break-Even Diesel Price: Gasifier Systems Using Charcoal or Rice Husks 0 Low cost charcoal system, 10 kW Ferrocement charcoal system, 10 kW 0 Boo-__ 700 ' 0 00 000 300_ 300 200 200 100 400 00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Annual full power hours Annual full power hours -40- 0 US/t -+-50 U$/i - 100 Lt$/t -Ei- 150 $/ -- 0 US/ -+- 50 V$/t I DO O/ -$ 150 U$/t High and low cost rice husk systems Rice husk fuel price: 0 USO/ion BOO T - oo 500 r 4~00I_ 300__ 00 100- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Annual full power hours -W- High cost. 100 kW I Low cost, 30 kW --- Low cost, 100 kW Effects of different hardware configurations on break-even diesel price for charcoal systems: 10 kW steel system 10 kW ferrocement system High cost rather than low Required increase of diesel price for break-even: cost gasifier system 1000 hours/year about 550 USD/ton not applicable 3000 hours/year about 250 USD/ton not applicable Back-fitting to existing Reduction of diesel price for break-even: generator set: 1000 hours/year about 450 USD/ton about 500 USD/ton 3000 hours/year about 200 USD/ton about 200 USD/ton Dual-fuel rather than full- At 80% diesel substitution, dual-fuel is marginally more economic for high biomass fuel gas system price and few annual operating hours. If less than 80% substitution is achieved, break- even diesel price will be higher. Economics of Biomass Gasifiers 47 Figure 5.3 Break-Even Fuel Oil Price: Low-Cost Heat Gasifier Systems Using Wood Heat gasifier, 500 kW _2_00 Heat gasifier, 1000 kW So 000 600- 500 500 M 300 - 200 0 0 L 0 _10 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Annual full power hours Annual full power hours - Wood price 0 US/t -+- Wood price 20 U$/t -w- Wood price 40 U$/i + Wood price 0 U$/I - Wood price 20 U$/i -- Wood price 40 U$/I -,- Wood price 60 U$/ -M- Wood price 80 US/t -A- Wood price 100 US/t -B- Wood price 60 U$/f -4- Wood price 80 U$/t -+- Wood price 100 U$/ Heat gasifier, 4000 kW 5800 $Q0 N, Q 500 1 S400- -300 1 100- ~ _ 0 1000 2000 3000 40050 007000 6000 Annual full power hours Wood price 0 U$/t -4- Wood price 20 U$/I - Wood price 40 U/I -e- Wood price 60 U$/1 -w- Wood price 80 US/t -A- Wood price 100 US/ Heat gasifiers; effects of different hardware configurations on break-even diesel price: 500kW 1000kW 4000 kW High cost rather than low Required increase of diesel price for break-even: cost gasifier system 1000 hours/year about 100 USD/ton about 150 USD/ton about 50 USD/ton 3000 hours/year about 50 USD/ton about 40 USD/ton about 30 USD/ton 5000 hours/year about 35 USD/ton about 30 USD/ton about 25 USD/ton Fuel: wood Efficiency oil fired installation: 85% Heat gasifier system efficiency: 75% 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Small-Scale Power Gasifiers Gasification combined with use of the gas in an internal combustion engine is the most efficient way of converting solid fuels into shaft power or electricity. Small-scale power gasification allows the use of biomass instead of petroleum derivatives in small internal combustion engines. Gasifiers use a renewable energy resource, one that is available almost everywhere in one form or another. Therefore, biomass gasification presents a local fuel alternative for countries that have no fossil fuel resources. Providing that the biomass used for gasification is grown on a sustainable basis, its use does not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and hence does not add to the "greenhouse effect." The technology may find application where petroleum fuels are either unavailable or where the cost of power from engines fueled by producer gas is lower than from diesel- or gasoline-fueled engines. Commercial Status of Small-Scale Power Gasifiers Although a number of equipment manufacturers in Europe and the United States sell small-scale biomass power gasification systems, only a few units have been installed in developed and developing countries during the last five years. The situation is somewhat different in India and China, where manufacturers of small-scale wood power gasifiers and rice husk gasifiers, respectively, appear to maintain at least some level of production. At present, only a few commercial small-scale biomass power gasifiers are operating globally. The majority are about a hundred rice husk gasifiers, located primarily in China. A declining number of charcoal gasifiers continue operation in Latin America, primarily Brazil. A few wood-fueled power gasifiers are in commercial operation in Latin America as well. The largest unit, about 1 MWeI, is installed in Paraguay. The short-term commercial prospects of small-scale biomass power gasifiers in developing countries at present appear limited. Three major factors can be cited: Unfavorable economics compared with fossil-fuel alternatives 49 50 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers * Low quality and reliability of equipment, resulting in operational difficulties * Inherent difficulties in training sufficiently qualified or experienced personnel, resulting in substandard operation of units. Longer-term prospects depend on the long-term price developments in world oil markets as well as on the progress that can be made in improving the quality of the equipment and in simplifying operating procedures. Power Gasifier Economics The economics of biomass gasification are highly dependent on the price of diesel fuel. At world market oil prices of approximately US$18/barrel, diesel costs about US$190/tonne. International and local transport costs can add a maximum of about US$60/tonne. Therefore, the maximum cost of diesel at most locations in the world is about US$250/tonne. Charcoal and Wood Gasifiers. At a diesel cost of US$250/tonne, small charcoal gasifiers are not economic. Such plants require at least a 100 percent increase in diesel-fuel cost even to be considered as an alternative to diesel power. Low-priced wood gasifiers of local manufacture and relatively large capacity (> 100 kWe) require low woodfuel prices (< US$20tonne), high load factors (close to 1), and high total operating hours (about 4,000 hours per year) for them to recover, through fuel cost savings, the additional capital investments associated with the current gasification systems. Only a regular and fairly constant power demand would make the such power gasifiers economically attractive. The latter two factors alone invalidate the economic application of those gasifier plants at most rural power applications in developing countries. Better possibilities may exist in relatively isolated agro-industries. Also, the economics of small-scale biomass gasifiers for base-load power generation in small local grids in developing countries should be studied. Rice Husk Gasifiers. The economic data from the BGMP suggest that the biomass power gasifiers that may be closest to commercialization are low-cost "open core" rice husk gasifiers. At 3,000 to 4,000 annual operating hours and high load factors, these plants require for diesel prices of only US$150 to 250/tonne to break even. It is probable that operating and load conditions of this sort exist in large rice mills in some developing countries. The potential for this technology therefore may be significant. Although high-cost rice husk gasifiers of Chinese design and manufacture are a proven technology, they are still associated with unacceptable environmental pollution. The same drawbacks apply to low-cost rice husk gasifiers, and they are also burdened by low quality and reliability. Nonetheless, experiences with low-cost rice husk gasifier designs in Indonesia have been encouraging. The pollution problem may be overcome by employing the same high-temperature catalytic tar-cracking techniques that have been developed for the large fluidized-bed biomass gasifiers. In view of their potential, low-cost, low-tar fixed-bed Conclusions and Recommendations 51 rice husk gasifiers, ranging in output from 100 kWei to 500 kWel, should be developed further. Once the environmental problems have been solved, "open core" gasifiers may be adapted for using other agricultural residues such as coffee husks, maize cobs, and cotton gin trash. Equipment Performance Several aspects of gasifier power plant performance were much below manufacturers' specifications. Specifically, maximum engine power output and diesel- fuel savings (in dual-fuel systems) of some plants were much lower than would be expected from the manufacturers' information. In addition, although most wood and charcoal plants produced a gas that can be used in internal combustion engines without considerably worsening their lifetime and maintenance needs, this was not the case for rice husk gasifiers, which at present only work with special sturdy low-speed engines that must have frequent maintenance. Because they were prototypes, almost all plants experienced significant problems relating to material selection and corrosion. Staff at some installations were able to overcome those problems, but most did not. None of the plants presented serious dangers with respect to operator health and safety, but operation of even state-of-the-art open-core rice husk plants still results in serious environmental pollution. Other gasifier types produced much more manageable environmental problems that can be overcome relatively easily. Equipment Reliability A comparison of relatively successful and unsuccessful projects reveals that both sorts experienced problems during the initial period after startup, but the successful projects were those that had the expertise and resources to modify and "debug" their plants and-in the end-arrive at more-or-less trouble-free operation. Successful projects had the commitment of the gasifier manufacturer for a prolonged period to help the local operators immediately with technical, material, or spare-part supply problem. The successful projects also evidenced a strong (usually financial) motivation of management and operator alike to keep the gasifier working. Equipment Quality The commercial market for small-scale gasifiers has never been large enough to carry the expenses of development from prototype to mature commercial plant. Plants that were installed were generally prototypes funded by grants. Under such circumstances, technical and operational problems are to be expected, especially because the performance of power gasifiers appears to be sensitive to relatively small changes in fuel- and energy-demand-related parameters. Nevertheless, the results of the BGMP show that some small-scale wood gasifiers finally achieved reliable and relatively trouble-free operation. Experience and expertise in building and operating reliable, safe, and pollution-free wood gasifiers is thus now available. 52 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Operating Personnel Properly operating a biomass gasification system requires training and experience. The labor required to operate a gasification plant is quite different from that required to run a diesel engine of equivalent output. This difference is not only quantitative but qualitative. During operation, the operator must frequently check a number of temperature and pressure meters and use the information so gleaned to make decisions on adding fuel, shaking the grate, deblocking filters, and adjusting valves. At the end of daily operation the operator normally cleans reactor and filters of ash and dust. The operator may also be in charge of fuel preparation and fuel quality control. All this means that, contrary to diesel engine operation, where the engine driver has time to take on additional unrelated tasks, a small-scale gasifier requires a full-time operator. The operational history of the gasifiers in the BGMP shows that not every operator can master the required competencies. Motivation and discipline are necessary, but the operator also must be able to react adequately on two or three input parameters and must master some basic technical skills. Biomass gasifier operations thus appear to require not only an adequate initial training program for operators but also continuous technical backup for a period of at least a year. Recent developments in the automotive industry have resulted in mass-produced hardware and software that may greatly increase possibilities for automatic control of gasifiers. The automotive industry manufactures and uses a number of inexpensive temperature- and shock-resistant sensors and attenuators. In combination with the corresponding multiparameter input logic software, such instruments could conceivably monitor and control a biogas engine and reactor, thereby largely reducing or eliminating the need for highly trained and experienced gasifier personnel. Although such a development would improve the current economic competitiveness of small wood and charcoal gasifiers only marginally, it would certainly increase the possibilities for speedy introduction of the technology. Environmental Pollution Biomass gasification systems produce solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes, which, if not adequately controlled, harm the environment. Solid wastes are primarily residue ash. The amount produced may vary between I and 20 percent, depending on the biomass fuel. In most cases, disposal of this ash is not a problem, and in some cases, such as rice husks, the ash may have value for use by steel or cement industries. Gaseous emissions from biomass gasifiers are also not a significant factor except possibly in the immediate vicinity of the system, where CO leakages could be hazardous to workers. Compared with alternatives-especially fossil-fuel-based systems-biomass gasifiers are relatively benign in their environmental emissions, producing no sulfur oxides and only low levels of particulates. The situation is not as encouraging when large quantities of liquid effluents are produced, as is the case in updraft and "open core" power gasifiers. The situation is Conclusions and Recommendations 53 exacerbated if wet-gas cleaning systems are used, which can dramatically increase the volumes of contaminated liquid effluent. In all cases, the effluent can be highly toxic, and untreated disposal of such effluent can lead to contamination of drinking water, fish kills, and other negative impacts. At present, additional research and development are needed to find solutions to this problem. Fortunately, most downdraft and cross-draft power gasifiers can be equipped with dry-gas clean-up systems, which drastically reduce the quantity of liquid effluent produced. As a result, disposal can be accomplished in a more controlled and acceptable manner. The problem does not arise in heat gasifiers, because such systems usually combust the dirty hot producer gas completely-that is, inclusive of the tarry components, which are gaseous at higher temperatures. Health and Safety Operation of biomass gasifiers may result in exposure to toxic gaseous emissions (i.e., carbon monoxide); fire and explosion hazards; and toxic liquid effluents. Avoiding poisoning by toxic gases is mainly a matter of following sound workplace procedures, such as avoiding inhalation of the exhaust gas during startup and ensuring good ventilation of gas-filled vessels before personnel enter them for service and maintenance. Avoiding fires and explosions is also primarily a matter of following sound procedures. In addition, however, it is important that the system is designed so that any internal explosion that may occur can be relieved to avoid damage to the system. Avoiding contact with carcinogenic compounds in the condensates requires the use of protective gloves, clothing, or both. From the above, it may be concluded that with proper operator training, equipment and procedures, health and safety hazards can be minimized or even eliminated. A Long-Term Approach to Technology Transfer From the BGMP it becomes clear that the gasifier programs that have adopted strategies for sustainability and long-term development have shown the best results. Donor agencies should concentrate on building local capability through training and transfer of technology rather than on simply providing expertise and equipment. Building local capacity is a slow process, but it is the only one that will lead to successful projects that benefit rural communities. Simply setting up a project and then leaving is a waste of time and money. Any activity not carried out with a motivated local partner is also destined to have no future. The most effective gasification programs have resulted from the formation of strong and experienced local organizations that enable the training of local personnel in different aspects of the technology and the adaptation of the process to suit local circumstances. Therefore, an in-country group of competent and dedicated professionals with experience in technology development and implementation seems an essential starting point for any sustained expansion in the use of biomass gasification. Any long- term program should probably start with setting up a national center of expertise. 54 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Heat Gasifiers The commercial potential for heat gasifiers is significant. The technical performance is generally proven and reliable. Heat gasifiers are economically attractive compared with conventional alternatives. In addition to their excellent prospects in the agro-industrial sector, heat gasifiers can be applied in non-biomass-producing industries requiring process heat if acceptable and affordable biomass fuels are available. Potential heat gasifier markets include retrofits for oil-fired boilers, ovens, kilns, and dryers used in various industries. A complete evaluation of the market potential of heat gasifiers would require a separate study. Annex: Criteria for Preliminary Project Identification The experiences from World War II as well as from several more recent projects in developing countries demonstrate that under certain conditions, wood gas from biomass can substitute for petroleum fuels. However, this does not mean that biomass gasification is a technically, economically, ecologically, or socially feasible alternative to petroleum fuels under all circumstances. Using the Checklist Reasonable assurance about the feasibility of a biomass gasifier installation can only be obtained after a careful technical and economic evaluation that takes into account site-specific requirements and conditions. For a first screening, however, a checklist (Figure Al .1) can be used to indicate whether biomass gasification is worth considering. If all questions on the list are answered positively, the evaluator can be reasonably sure of good prospects for a biomass gasification project. Any negative answer should prompt the evaluator to look for ways to eliminate the obstacles to a successful biomass gasification project or to examine alternative ways of meeting power requirements. The decision tree in Figure Al .1 is based on simple positive/negative answers to a number of questions. Some background information to these questions is given in the following paragraphs. This information is summarized in Table Al. 1. Capacity Range The largest fixed-bed gasifier power plant reporting more-or-less reliable operation uses two wood gasifiers to fuel three wood-gas engines of 330 kWei each. The BGMP was not able to monitor this plant, which is in a Mennonite community in Loma Plata, Paraguay. Single gasifier units in capacities above 500 kWel are not commercially proven. Moreover, upscaling of fixed-bed power gasifiers above 500 kWei may be difficult for technical and environmental reasons. Most recent biomass gasification experience stems from plants operating generators in the 10 to 100 kWei range. Probably the largest feasible capacity for fixed-bed heat gasifiers is in the range of 5 MWth. Larger heat gasifiers are in operation, but the reactors are mostly of the fluidized-bed type, which is outside the scope of this report. 55 56 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Figure A1.1 Decision Tree for Small-Scale Biomass Gasifier Projects Is your capacity demand in the following range? Small scale gasifiers are Below 500 electrical or mechanical kW or commercially unproven outside this range. below 5 thermal MW Large risk for project failure Small scale fixed bed gasifiers are I :, comecill upoen forohrfes Do you have the following biomass available? c omEy v o o rfu hells Are you prepared to run extensive fuel tests Charcoal, wood,and adapt system design if neccessary? - 0 Is your supply of biomass sustainable at the Can you supplement your supply with a required daily, monthly, and annual level for similar biomass from other sources to meet the expected duration of your project ? your needs ? 0 0 Are you willing to invest twice the capital 0 O as is required for a petroleum system ? Potential of economic feasibility is uncertain w and dependent on other factors (i.e., actual Is the biomass fuel price below 60 capital and other operating costs). A US$/ton and the petroleum price above Are you still prepared to spend time to 300 US$/ton ?analyze the costs in more detail? It is unlikely that recovery of capital costs can be achieved through fuel cost savings O Can more than 1,000 annual operating in less than I1,01)0 hours per year. hours be expected? wAre you still prepared to spend time analyzing the fuel costs in more detail? O Is heexpected average load of the system 3. during operation greater than 50 percent? Low load factor can lead to operational problems. Have you found a system design with proven performance over your load range? O Are you willing to accept somewhat lower reliability than normally associated with a Are you prepared to invest in a back-up diesel system operating in your environment? system? (A Is teelbraalbetoprta 0) Is there labor available to operate and Do you think that better incentives for the c maintain the gasifier system, and are the operators would improve the situation, and are fi> E operators willing to deal with the dirtier you prepared to accept the financial O Kworking conditions associated with gasiflers ? cons p eparenacet th iaca consequences? Are there any other successful gasifier pro- Are you prepared to be a pioneer and to jects currently operating in your country from E O establish the support infrastructure which you can obtain information? that will be needed? Are you confident that you have answered EK> Review the data in this handbook all the above questions correctly ? and/or seek technical assistance. Prospects are good for successful applications of biomass gasification, and a more detailed analysis should be conducted. Annex 57 Biomass Fuels Charcoal, many types of wood, rice husk, and coconut shells are the only fuels that can be considered as commercially proven in fixed-bed power gasifiers. Depending on the gas producer design and the form in which the fuel is available, preprocessing of the fuel may be required. The same fuels work well in fixed-bed heat gasifiers. However, indications are that the performance of these plants is less critical with respect to specific fuel characteristics, so that other biomass fuels (e.g., maize cobs, coffee husks, coconut husks, cotton gin trash) also may be considered in this application. Sustainable Fuel Supply For successful application of a biomass gasifier, a suitable quantity of biomass fuel must be available to fuel the installation during its lifetime. Table Al.1 gives biomass fuel consumption figures for plants operating on full power that were measured during the BGMP. In conjunction with actual power or heat demand figures, those data can be used to estimate the minimum necessary biomass supply. Investment The cost of an installation with a biomass gasifier compared with one using petroleum fuel will obviously depend on choice of equipment and supplier. Data from the BGMP show very large variations in specific costs (US$/kW). However, experience from recent units indicates that as a rule-of-thumb the installed cost of a gasifier power plant tends to be two to four times the cost of a similar installation operating on petroleum fuel and that the installed cost of a heat gasifier may be one and a half to two times the cost of an oil-fueled plant. Local Conditions The feasibility of small-scale biomass gasifiers hinges on the savings that can be gained by switching from relatively high-cost petroleum fuels to low-cost biomass fuels. A detailed and accurate financial feasibility study can only be carried out late in a project study, after the operating conditions have been determined and the equipment has been specified. In the early project identification phase, a first rough estimate is desirable; hence, the three listed items in the decision tree (i.e., fuel cost, operating hours, and load factor) address this issue. It should be borne in mind however, that the three factors are interrelated (i.e., a high number of annual operating hours or a high value of the load factor can compensate for too-low petroleum fuel costs on site or too-high processed biomass fuel costs. Fuel Costs Obviously the possibilities to regain the additional investment through savings on the fuel bill are highest when petroleum costs are high and biomass fuel costs are low. 58 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers Table A1.1 Background Information to the Checklist When Considering Biomass Gasification Power gasifiers Heat gasifiers Evaluation factor (capacity range < 500 kWeI) (capacity range < 5.0 MWth) Biomass fuels Charcoal Wood Wood Charcoal Rice husks Rice husks Coconut shells Coconut shells Limited experience with a number of other biomass fuels Fuel consumption Wood: 1.3-1.4 kg/kWe Wood: 0.4 kg/kWth Charcoal: 0.7-0.9 kg/kWei Charcoal: 0.15-0.17 kg/kWth Investment 2-4 times the investment in 1.5-2.0 times the investment in oil- petrol/oil-fueled plant fueled plant Local conditions Fuel cost Petrol/diesel > 300 US$/tonne Processed biomass fuel < 60 US$/tonne Operating hours > 1,000 hour per year Load factor > 50 Reliability 10-20 downtime caused by Less than 5 downtime caused by technical problems technical problems Labor Motivated and skilled labor No special labor requirements required Other projects Initial support needed No special requirements Note: kg = kilogram; kWel = kilowatt electric; kWth = kilowatt thermal; MWth = megawatt thermal. However, the data from the BGMP show that it is unlikely that biomass gasification will be financially feasible if the cost of petroleum fuel on site is less than about US$300/tonne and the cost of processed biomass fuel on site is more than about US$60/tonne. Operating Hours If the additional investment in a gasifier is to be recovered within a reasonable time, the unit must be operated frequently. After all, only in operation can comparative savings on fuel cost be realized. Consequently, the possibility of recovering the additional investment depends greatly on the operating time. Data from the BGMP indicate that recovery of the additional capital investment is unlikely when the gasifier is used for less then 1,000 hours per year. Load Factor The load factor of an energy system is defined as the ratio of the actual energy output and the nominal (maximum possible) power output. Low load factors in gasifier Annex 1 59 systems may have both economic and technical consequences. If the average load factor is low, reclaiming of the additional capital investment as compared to a conventional petrol- or oil-fueled system will become increasingly difficult. Also, certain type of power gasification systems (i.e., downdraft fixed-bed gasifiers) are technically not suitable for prolonged operation on low loads. Therefore, evaluation of the gasifier option only makes sense when the expected average load factor is above 50 percent. Reliability The data of the BGMP make it clear that gasifier power plants are less reliable than comparable petrol- or oil-fueled systems. On the one hand, this is caused by a lag in development that may well be remedied over time. On the other hand, the complexity of adding a gas producer to an engine is an intrinsic reason for lower reliability. The data indicate that at present the more developed small-scale biomass gasifier power plants are down for 10 to 20 percent of the time because of technical problems or scheduled maintenance. Heat gasifiers have fewer technical problems and consequently are more reliable. Labor Operating an installation with a biomass gasifier means additional fuel processing, fuel handling, and system service compared with using liquid fuel. In particular, the regular cleaning of gas filters can be a dirty and therefore less attractive job. Service intervals for biomass gasifier plants are shorter than for plants using liquid fuels, which means that the requirements on operator discipline are higher if operational disturbances are to be minimized. Operation itself also requires a higher time input, since high-tech control and safety systems that allow unattended operation are more difficult to justify financially for small-scale installations. Even with regular service, some operational disturbances-such as those that may be caused by irregularities in fuel properties-are likely to occur at irregular intervals. Such disturbances will demand intervention of higher skill and understanding of the process from the operator than is normally the case in liquid fuel operation. These skills can be transferred through proper training if the trainee has a reasonable level of diagnostic aptitude and ability. The implication is that successful operation of a small-scale gasifier power installation calls for a more skilled, motivated, and disciplined operator than is normally needed for diesel engine operation. In addition, this operator must be willing to do dirty work. The BGMP has learned that such operators are sometimes difficult to find on sites and in situations where small-scale power gasifiers are financially feasible. Some plants would have performed much better had the operators shown more skill and dedication in their tasks. More specifically, the BGMP indicated that it is not easy to transform engine drivers into gasifier operators, especially without adequately adapting their salary to the new and more demanding tasks, introducing an incentive scheme based on fuel-cost savings, or both. 60 Small-Scale Biomass Gasifiers The above-mentioned labor problems were not encountered at heat gasifier plants, probably because operating a heat gasifier intrinsically calls for less skill, motivation, and discipline than are needed for running a power gasifier. Other Projects Since it is more complex to fuel an engine with producer gas than with liquid fossil fuel, it is very likely that advice and technical support will be needed in the initial phase of the project, which may last for a year. If other similar installations are operated in the neighborhood, the necessary support may be obtained from the users of these installations. In pioneer installations, however, support must be arranged either through the equipment manufacturer or through a technical consultant. This initial support must not be neglected or underestimated. Many if not most failures of biomass gasifier projects in developing countries can be attributed to lack of sufficient technical assistance. Detailed Evaluation If careful consideration of the questions in the checklist have led to the conclusion that there are good prospects for a successful application of the technology, a preliminary project design should be made. References Biomass Technology Group. 1992. State of the Art: Rice Husk Gasification, Enschede, The Netherlands. ESMAP (Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme). 1990. Costa Rica: Forest Residues Utilization Study. ESMAP Report 108/90. Washington, D.C. 61 Distributors of World Bank Publications ARGENTINA DENMARK JAPAN SINGAPORE, TAIWAN Carlos Hirsch, SRL SarnfundsLatteratur Eastern Book Service Gower Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. GalenaGuemes RosenoernsAll6 11 Hongo 3-Chome, Bunkyo-ku 113 Golden Wheel Building Florida 165,4 th Floor-Ofc. 453/465 DK-1970 Freden ksberg C Tokyo 41, Kallang Pudding, D04-t3 1333 Buenos Aires Singapore 1334 EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF KENYA Oficinadel Libro Internacional AlAbram Afnca BookService (EA.) Ltd. SLOVAKREPUBLIC Alberti 40 Al Galas Street Quaran House, Mfangano St. Slovart G.T.G. Ltd. 1082BuenosAires Caro P.O. Box 45245 Krupinska4 Nairobi P.O. Box 152 AUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, The Middle East Observer 852 99Bratislava 5 FIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, 41, ShenfStreet KOREA,REPUBLIC OF VANUATU, AND Cairo DaejonTrading Co. Ltd. SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA WESTERN SAMOA P.O. Box 34 Oxford University Press DA. Information Services FINLAND Yeoaida SouthernAfrica 648 Whitehorse Road AkateeminenlKirlakauppa Seoul P.O. Box 1141 Mitcharm3132 P.O. Box 23 CapeTown8OO Victoria FIN-00371 Helsinki MALAYSIA University of Malaya Cooperative SPAIN AUSTRIA FRANCE Bookshop, Limited Mundi-Prensa libros, SA. Gerold and Co. World Bank Publications P.O. Box 1127, Jalan Pantal Baru Castello37 Graben3l 66, avenue d'I6na 59700 Kuala Lumpur 280D1 Madrid A-1011 Wien 75116 Pans MEXICO Librerialnternacional AEDOS BANGLADESH GERMANY INFOTEC Consell de Cent, 391 Micro Industries Development UNO-Verlag ApartadoPostal 22-860 08009 Barcelona Assistance Society (MIDAS) PoppelsdorferAllee55 14060 Talpan, Mexico D.F. House 5, Road 16 53115Bonn SRI LANKA &TH`E MALDIVES DhanmondR/Area NETHERLANDS Lake House Bookshop Dhaka 1209 GREECE DeLindeboom/InOr-Publikaties P.O. Box 244 Papasotiriou S.A. P.O. Box 202 100, Sir Chittampalam A. BELG[UM 35, StournaraStr. 7480 AE Hanksbergen GardinerMawatha Jean De Lannoy 106 82 Athens Colombo 2 Av. du Roi 202 NEW ZEALAND 1060 Brussels HONG KONG, MACAO EBSCO NZ Ltd. SWEDEN Asia 2000 Ltd. Private Mail Bag 99914 Frtes Customer Service BRAZIL 46-48 Wyndham Street New Market Regenngsgatan l2 Publicacoes Tecnicas Internacionais WinningCentre Auckland S-106 47Stockholm Ltda. 7th Floor Rua Peixoto Gomde, 209 Central, Hong Kong NIGERIA Wennergren-Williams AB 01409 Sao Paulo, SP University Press Limited P.O. Box 1305 HUNGARY Three Crowns BuildingJercho S-171 25Solna CANADA Foundation forMarketEconomy Private MailBag 5095 Le Diffuseur Donbovart Ut l7-19 lbadan SWITZERLAND 151ABoul. deMortagne H-1117Budapest LibrainePayot Boucherville, Quebec NORWAY Case postale 3212 J4B 5E6 INDIA NarvesenInformation Center CH1002 Lausanne Allied Publishers Private Ltd. Book Department Renouf Publishing Co. 751 Mount Road P.O. Box 6125 Etterstad Van Diermen EditionsTechniques 1294 Algoma Road Madras - 600 002 N-0602 Oslo 6 P.O. Box 465 Ottawa. Ontario KlB3W8 CH1211 Geneva 19 INDONESIA PAKISTAN CHINA PLIndiraLimited MirzaBookAgency TANZANIA China Fincial & Economic Jalan Borobudur 20 65, ShahraheQuaideAzam Oxford University Press Publishing House P.O. Box 181 P.O. Box No. 729 MaktabaStreet 8, Da Fo Si Dong Jie Jakarta 10320 Lahore5400O P.O. Box 5299 Beipng Dar es-Salaam IRAN Oxford University Press COLOMBIA Kowkab Publishers 51angaloreTown THAILAND Infoenlace Ltda. P.O. Box 19575-511 SharaeFaisal Central Books Distribution Co. Ltd. Apartado Aereo34270 Tehran P.O. Box 13033 306SilomRoad Bogota D.E Karach-75350 Bangkok IRELAND COSTA RICA, BELIZE, GUATE Government Supplies Agency PERU TRINIDAD & TOBAGO, JAMAICA -MALA,HONDURAS, 4-5HarcourtRoad EditorialDesarrolloSA SystematicsStudiesUnit NICARAGUA, PANAMA Dublin 2 Apartado3824 #9WattsStreet ChispasBookstore Lima l Curepe 75 Meters al Norte del Hotel Balmoral ISRAEL Trinidad, West Indies en calle 7 Yozmot Literature Ltd. PHILIPPINES San Jose P.O. Box 56055 InternationalBookCenter UGANDA Tel Aviv 61560 Suite 720, Cityland 10 Gustro Ltd. COTED'IVOIRE CondomnruumTower 2 1st Floor, Room 4, Geogiadis Chambers Centre d'Editionet de Diffusion R.O.Y.International Ayala Avenue, H.V. dela P.O. Box 9997 Afncaunes (CEDA) P.O. Box 13056 Costa Extension Plot (69) Kampala Road 04 B.P.541 Tel Aviv 61130 Makati, Metro Manila Kampala Abidjan 04 Plateau Palestinian Authorit/MXiddle East POLAND UNITED KINGDOM CYPRUS IndexIrnforationServices InternationalPublishingService MicronfoLtd. Center of Applied Research P.O.B. 19502 Jerusalem Ul. Piekna 31/37 P.O. Box 3 Cyprus College 00-577 Warszava Alton, Hampshire GU34 2PG 6, Diogenes Street, Engomi ITALY England P.O. Box 2006 Licosa Commissionaria Sansoni SPA PORTUGAL Nicos,a Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/I LivransPortugal ZAMBIA Casella Postale 552 Rua Do Carnao 70-74 University Bookshop CZECHREPUBLIC 50125Firenze 12001Lisbon Great East Road Campus National Information Center P.O. Box 32379 P.O. Box 668 JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR Lusaka CS-113 57 Prague I lan Randle Publishers Ltd. Jarir BookStore 206 Old Hope Road P.O. Box 3196 ZIMBABWE Kngston 6 RiyadhI1471 Longman Zimbabwe (Pte.) Ltd. TourleRoad, Ardbennie P.O. Box ST 125 RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS No. 216 Carr, Improving Cash Crops in Africa: Factors Influencing the Productivity of Cotton, Coffee, and Tea Grown by Smallholders No. 217 Antholt, Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change and Institutional Modernization in Agriculture No. 218 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to December 1992 No. 219 Cercone, Alcohol-Related Problems as an Obstacle to the Development of Human Capital: Issues and Policy Options No. 220 Kingsley, Ferguson, Bower, and Dice, Managing Urban Environmental Quality in Asia No. 221 Srivastava, Tamboli, English, Lal, and Stewart, Conserving Soil Moisture and Fertility in the Warm Seasonally Dry Tropics No. 222 Selvaratnam, Innovations in Higher Education: Singapore at the Competitive Edge No. 223 Piotrow, Treiman, Rimon, Yun, and Lozare, Strategies for Family Planning Promotion No. 224 Midgley, Urban Transport in Asia: An Operational Agenda for the 1990s No. 225 Dia, A Governance Approach to Civil Service Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 226 Bindlish, Evenson, and Gbetibouo, Evaluation of T&V-Based Extension in Burkina Faso No. 227 Cook, editor, Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected Papers from a Conference on Environment and Settlement Issues in Africa No. 228 Webster and Charap, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in St. Petersburg: A Survey of Firms No. 229 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Hungary: A Survey of Firms No. 230 Webster and Swanson, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in the Former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic: A Survey of Firms No. 231 Eisa, Barghouti, Gillham, and Al-Saffy, Cotton Production Prospects for the Decade to 2005: A Global Overview No. 232 Creightney, Transport and Economic Performance: A Survey of Developing Countries No. 233 Frederiksen, Berkoff, and Barber, Principles and Practices for Dealing with Water Resources Issues No. 234 Archondo-Callao and Faiz, Estimating Vehicle Operating Costs No. 235 Claessens, Risk Management in Developing Countries No. 236 Bennett and Goldberg, Providing Enterprise Development and Financial Services to Women: A Decade of Bank Experience in Asia No. 237 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Poland: A Survey of Firms No. 238 Heath, Land Rights in C6te d'Ivoire: Survey and Prospects for Project Intervention No. 239 Kirmani and Rangeley, International Inland Waters: Concepts for a More Active World Bank Role No. 240 Ahmed, Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review of the Status and Costs of Selected Technologies No. 241 Webster, Newly Privatized Russian Enterprises No. 242 Barnes, Openshaw, Smith, and van der Plas, What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves? A Comparative International Review of Stove Programs No. 243 Menke and Fazzari, Improving Electric Power Utility Efficiency: Issues and Recommendations No. 244 Liebenthal, Mathur, and Wade, Solar Energy: Lessons from the Pacific Island Experience No. 245 Klein, External Debt Management: An Introduction No. 246 Plusquellec, Burt, and Wolter, Modern Water Control in Irrigation: Concepts, Issues, and Applications No. 247 Ameur, Agricultural Extension: A Step beyond the Next Step No. 248 Malhotra, Koenig, and Sinsukprasert, A Survey of Asia's Energy Prices No. 249 Le Moigne, Easter, Ochs, and Giltner, Water Policy and Water Markets: Selected Papers and Proceedings from the World Bank's Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, Annapolis, Maryland, December 8-10, 1992 No. 250 Rangeley, Thiam, Andersen, and Lyle, International River Basin Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 251 Sharma, Rietbergen, Heimo, and Patel, A Strategy for the Forest Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 252 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and Demand Balances for Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1992/93-1998/99 No. 253 Jensen and Malter, Protected Agriculture: A Global Review (List continues on the inside back cover) THE WORLD BANK A partner in strengthening economies and expanding markets to improve the quality of life for people everywhere, especially the poorest Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office 1818 H Street, N.W. 66, avenue d'Ina Kokusai Building Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1, Marunouchi 3-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00 Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 40.69.30.66 Telephone: (3) 3214-5001 Telex: mci 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 640651 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657 Mci 248423 WORLDBANK Telex: 26838 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD WASHINGTONDC World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org E-mail: books@worldbank.org 13371 1 t K.) f!I11 9 780821333716 I. 7 1.ISBN 0-8213-3371-2