Appropriate Fuel Substitution Technologies as Energy Conservation Method for Industries

National Energy Efficiency Conference (NEEC)

Dr. Hanny J. Berchmans Clean Energy Project Development Manager USAID-Indonesia Clean Energy Development (ICED) 11 June 2012, Jakarta

MOTIVATION

INDONESIAN BIOMASS RESOURCES AND CHARACTERITICS OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE BIOMASS AS COFUEL AND OR FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE IN INDUSTRY

3
4

CASE STUDY: OIL PALM INDUSTRY

INDONESIA HAS LARGE BIOMASS POTENTIAL RESOURCES BUT THE UTILIZATION ONLY LESS THAN 2% COMERCIALLY PROVEN TECHNOLOGY TO UTILIZE BIOMASS AS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE OR CO-FUEL ARE AVAILABLE FOSSIL FUEL IS NOT RENEWABLE AND ITS PRICE INCREASING BIOMASS DOES NOT PROVIDE NEGATIVE EFFECT TO THE ENVIRONMENT WASTE BIOMASS UTILIZATION IN INDUSTRY MAY REDUCE ENERGY COST

PALM PLANTATION

CASSAVA

23.5 Mill Ton/year

CPO: 20.1 Mill Ton/year Fiber: 10.3 Mill Ton/year Shell: 4.7 Mill Ton/year EFB: 18.0 Mill Ton/year Trunk: 24.6 Mill Ton/year Fronds: 123 Mill Ton/year POME: 42.8 Mill Ton/year

RICE HUSK

CORNCOB

10 Mill Ton/year

12.5 Mill Ton/year

Source: USAID-ICED

50 40
Mill Ton

Indonesia

30
20 10 0 Agricultural Biomass Woody Biomass

Thailand
Malaysia Pilipina Vietnam

Source: USAID-ICED

500 400 300

MWe

Indonesia Thailand Malaysia

200 100 0 Biomas (Agri Biogas (Agri Biomas (Non Biogas (Non Waste) Waste) Agri Waste) Agri Waste)

Singapura
Pilipina Vietnam

* Based on the power plants connected to national power grid system

Source: USAID-ICED

FEEDSTCOK
Crude Palm Oil, Coconut Oil, Jatropha Oil & Micro Algae Oils
Sugarcane, cassava, sagu, sorgum & ligno celulosa Straight vegetable oil, Pyrolisys based Biomass Oil and Pure Plant Oil All Solid Biomass

TYPE
Biodiesel
Bioethanol Biooil - Biokerosin - Minyak bakar - Biobriket, bahan bakar kayu

PHASE FORM
Liquid
Liquid Liquid

UTILIZATION
Diesel fuel substitute
Gasoline fuel substitute - Kerosene substitute

- Industrial Diesel Oil substitute

Solid Kerosene and diesel fuel substitute

Industrial and Agro-industrial Wastewater and livestock waste

- Biogas

Gas

Kerosene and diesel fuel substitute

Source: USAID-ICED

COMPONENT Availability

BIOMASS Depend on human effort

OTHERS RE Depend on nature

Utilization method
Sustainability Final energy form Feedstock supply Development opportunity Technology

Can be stored without additional facility/equipment

Depend on the management Solid, liquid, gas, electric Generally need payment/contract Very potential Simple to complex

Mostly need to be used directly or stored with additional facility/equipment

Depend on nature Generally electric Free Very potential Simple to complex

Availability in Indonesia

All area

Limited to certain area

Source: USAID-ICED

TURBIN UAP PEMBAKARAN LANGSUNG TERMOKIMIA

TURBIN GAS

GASIFIKASI MOTOR BAKAR PIROLISIS

LISTRIK PANAS BAHAN BAKAR

KONVERSI BIOMAS KE ENERGI ANAEROBIK DIGESTER

MESIN DIESEL

SEL BAHAN BAKAR KIMIA/BIOKIMIA FERMENTASI DESTILATOR

ALKOHOLISIS

REFINERY

BIOMASS CAN BE USED AS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (FUEL SWITCHING) OR AS PARTIAL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (CO-FIRING/CO-FUEL) IN BOILERS, FURNACES AND PROCESS HEATERS BIOGAS CAN BE USED AS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (FUEL SWITCHING) OR AS PARTIAL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (CO-FIRING/CO-FUEL) IN DIRECT COMBUSTION ABSORPTION CHILLERS BIO-OIL/BIODIESEL CAN BE USED AS FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (FUEL SWITCHING) OR AS PARTIAL FOSSIL FUEL SUBSTITUTE (BLEND FUEL) IN COMBUSTION ENGINES

INDUSTRY SUBSECTOR
PRIMARY METAL PULP AND PAPER

ENERGY INETENSITY
650 kWh/Ton 350 kWh/Ton1 380 TOE/Mill USD 115 TOE/Mill USD1

ENERGY SAVING OPPORTUNITY (%) 11-32 10-20

APPLICABLE FUEL SWITCHING OPTIONS

BIOGAS
BIOMASS

RESIDUAL OIL

OTHERS

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

By product fuels Black liquor fuels

CHEMICAL & PETROCHEMICAL

FOOD & BEVERAGE TEXTILE INDUSTRY NON-MANUFACTURING
1 JAPAN 2 INDIA

12-17
13-15 9.59 GJ/Ton 3.1 GJ/Ton2 20-35 13-20

Yes
Yes Yes Yes

Yes
Yes Yes Yes

Yes
Yes Yes Yes

By product fuels

Source: USAID-ICED

KEY BENEFITS OF FUEL SWITCHING REDUCE VOLATILITY, DEMANDS, AND INDUSTRYS VULNERABILITY TO HIGH FOSSIL FUEL PRICES DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST FOR LIQUIDS AND GASEOUS FUELS

KEY BARRIERS TO FUEL SWITCHING NEW FUEL SUPPLY, TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS EQUIPMENT DERATINGS FOR COAL, BIOMASS, OIL AND COALOIL MIXTURE FUEL AVAILABILITY HIGH CAPITAL COST FOR CONVERSION TO SOLID FUELS OR ELECTRICITY

BOILER TYPE

BIOMASS SIZE (mm)

MIXING METHOD

DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

PULVERIZED COAL BOILER

1.
2.

Blending before pulverizers Separate processing, handling, storage system, and injection system
Premixed Dedicated fuel hopper

1.
2.

Amount of biomass limited max. 3% of the boiler heat input Expensive

1. 2.

Least expensive Amount of biomass up to 15% of the boiler heat input

No modification, and very low investment cost Low investment cost

STOKER

75

1. 2.

Smaller biomass size can cause blockage in duel feeding systems

1. 2.

CYCLONE FLUIDIZED BED

13 75 1. 2. Premixed Dedicated fuel hopper Smaller biomass size can cause blockage in duel feeding systems 1. 2. No modification, and very low investment cost Low investment cost

Source : Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers, Federal Energy Management Program, USE DOE

Fuel size drives the combustion process primarily residence time.

Longer furnace residence times enable larger sized biomass (stokers, fluidized bed, and cyclones) Short residence times (pulverized coal firing) is necessary in small particle size for efficient combustion

2300 oF

3000 oF

SLAGGING, FOULING, AND CORROSION FUEL-HANDLING AND PROCESSING PROBLEMS UNDERESTIMATING FUEL ACQUISITION EFFORTS BOILER EFFICIENCY LOSSES NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ASH MARKETS

Plant Modification required: 1. Weather proof barge unloading and conveyance Keep biomass dry New buildings 2. New biomass storage buildings 3. Modify conveyors: Keep biomass dry Address steep angles Dust supression Fire protection

Source: Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group

4. Modify coal bunkers for biomass pellets 3. Modify existing mills 4. Boiler changes Accommodate higher flue gas velocities & temperatures 5. Change ash handling and disposal system 6. New burners system: Reduce NOx system

BOILER TYPE

PLANT SIZE (MW)

HEAT INPUT FROM BIOMASS (%)

UNIT COST ($/kW)1

TOTAL COST FOR COFIRING RETROFIT ($)

NET ANNUAL COST SAVINGS ($/yr)2

PAYBACK PERIOD (years)

PRODUCTION COST WITHOUT COFIRING (/kWh)3

PRODUCTION COST WITH COFIRING (/kWh)4

STOKER (Low Cost) STOKER (High Cost) Pulverized Coal Pulverized Coal Fluidized bed
1Unit 2Net

15 15 100 100 15

20 20 3 15 15

50 350 100 230 50

150,000 1,050,000 300,000 3,450,000 112,500

199,760 199,760 140,184 700,922 149,468

0.8 5.3 2.1 4.9 0.8

5.25 5.25 3.26 3.26 5.41

5.03 5.03 3.24 3.15 5.24

costs are on a per kW of biomass power basis(not per kW of total power)

annual cost savings= fuel cost savings increased O&M costs.

3Based

on data obtained from EPRI's Technical Assessment Guide, 1993, EIA's Costs of Producing Electricity, 1992, UDI's Electric Power Database, EPRI/DOE's Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, 1997, coal cost of $2.10/MBtu, biomass cost of $1.25/MBtu, and capacity factor of 70%

BOILER TYPE

PLANT SIZE (MW)

HEAT INPUT FROM BIOMASS (%)

REDUCED COAL USED (Tons/yr)

BIOMASS USED (Tons/yr)1

ANNUAL CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION (Tons/yr)

ANNUAL SO2 EMISSION REDUCTION (Tons/yr)

ANNUAL NOx EMISSION REDUCTION (Tons/yr)

STOKER (Low Cost) STOKER (High Cost) Pulverized Coal Pulverized Coal Fluidized bed
1Depending on

15 15 100 100 15

20 20 3 15 15

10,125 10,125 7,578 7,429 37,146

16,453 16,453 12,314 12,072 60,362

27,843 27,843 20,839 20,430 102,151

466 466 349 342 1,709

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

the source of biomass

Source : Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers, Federal Energy Management Program, USE DOE

BENEFITS OF COFIRING REDUCED FUEL COST -> ENERGY SAVING REDUCED SOx AND NOx EMISSIONS LANDFILL COST REDUCTION REDUCED GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS RENEWABLE ENERGY WHEN NEEDED MARKET-READY RENEWABLE ENERGY OPTION FUEL DIVERSIFICATION LOCALLY BASED FUEL SUPPLY

COST EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS COAL AND BIOMASS SUPPLY PRICE LANDFILL TIPPING FEES BOILER SIZE AND USAGE PATTERNS BOILER MODIFICATIONS AND EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS RREQUIRED

Actual capacity Biomass Consumption

Ratio POME to FFB Actual daily raw POME POME COD value Lagoon arrangements Number of Boilers Boiler Capacity

Number of steam turbine Steam Turbine Capacity

Power Production Power Consumption

: 56.59 Ton FFB/h : 0.21 Ton EFB/Ton FFB; 0.06 Ton Shell/Ton FFB; 0.13 Ton Fiber/Ton FFB : 0.55 : 460 m3 POME/day : 65000 mg/l : Multi feed with 6 ponds, volume 15000 m3/pond : 3 units : (1) 20 m3 steam/hr (2) 20 m3 steam/hr (3) 25 m3 steam/hr : 3 units : (1) 1250 kVA (2) 1250 kVA (3) 1500 kVA : 1000 kW (average) : 1000 kW (average)

 POME mass fraction is the highest POME can be utilized as source of biogas fuel for boilers

GAS CLEANING SYSTEM

GAS REFORMERS SYSTEM

AEROBIC POND
WATER SULFUR HYDRO OTHERS CARBON

CLEAN BIOGAS

LAND APPLICATION

BIOGAS CAPTURE ANAEROBIC DIGESTER POME PALM OIL MILL FFB

RAW BIOGAS

BOILERS

CLEAN HYDROGEN

GAS ENGINE

FLARE PLANTATION
OLEO CHEMICAL PLANT

Biogas generation from liquid waste with total solid of 0.5 to 3 %. Liquid wastes are contained in geo textile lining to capture methane released during anaerobic biological conversion. Typical Hydraulic Retention time is 30 to 60 days

( CADL )

Biogas: CO2: 25 45 % CH4: 50 75 % Water Vapor: 2 7 % H2 S < 2 % Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT): 30 60 days Total solid: 0.5 2 %

Source: Waste Solutions and EPA

 Methane capture (m3 CH4/day): Assumes mesophilic conditions at ~40C. POMEs temperature leaving the POM ranges between 70-80C, requiring a preliminary tank or a cooling tower to bring the temperature down. We recommend the use of a Covered Anaerobic Digester Lagoon (CADL) at POMs for several reasons: Capital investment costs and O&M costs are significantly lower than other systems. There is already local experience in Indonesia with CADL systems for POME; there are about 30 CAL projects currently in Indonesia. There is sufficient space near the POMs to construct CADLs. Shells replacement: Assumes that biogas would be burnt directly in the boilers instead of shells.

ITEM

UNIT

VALUE

Methane density
Thermal conversion efficiency Energy content of methane Methane capture Electricity generation Utilization Generator Capacity with Biogas Installed steam turbine capacity Electric power consumption Shells produced

kg CH4 / m3 CH4
% BTU / m3 CH4 m3 CH4/day kWh/day hr/day kW kW kW MT/year

0.716
35 32,956 7,768 25,972 24 1,082 3,200 1,000 15,109

Shells that could be sold if biogas used as boiler fuel to replace some of the shells

MT/year

15,109

ITEM

UNIT

VALUE

CH4 CH4

kg CH4/year
MT CH4/year MT CO2e/year MT CO2e/yr MT CO2e/yr MT CO2e/yr MT CO2e/yr

2,030,021 2,030

CO2 Indirect emission reduction

Total CO2 Estimated project emissions- 20% Estimated Emission Reductions

42,630 7,022
49,652 8,526 41,126

ITEM Cost earthwork Cost digester Cost biogas equipment (flare, piping and valves,, etc) Other costs - 20% (engineering, electrical controls, contingency) New burner Total investment cost EXPENSE O&M digester (15% of digester cost) 1. Monitoring cost

UNIT US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$

VALUE 150,000 300,000 300,000 150,000 150,000 1,050,000

135,000 USD/month USD/month 100 136,200

Total investment cost

ITEM Revenues CERs from methane destruction CERs price Shell sold Price of shells Total annual revenues IRR NPV (15 yrs, 2%)

UNIT

VALUE

US$ US$ MT/year $/MT US$ % US$ US$ US$ US$

41,126 5 15,109 35 734,445 57 6,506,864 5,386,071 4,4909,849 3,769,131

NPV (15 yrs, 4%)

NPV (15 yrs, 6%) NPV (15 yrs, 8%)

Dr. Hanny J Berchmans hannyjberchmans@gmail.com hanny.berchmans@iced.or.id