Biomass Gasification for Sustainable Power Generation

Memorandum of Understanding
Background:
The global Biomass Gasification market is projected to grow at a high rate during the
forecast period. Due to rising environmental concerns and increasing green-house gas
emissions, companies are now turning towards environment-friendly energy sources. There
are various active systems across the globe with involvement of independent stakeholders,
promoters & developers.
Biomass gasification also provides a means of deriving more diverse forms of energy from
the thermochemical conversion of biomass than conventional combustion.
VIVA POWER, a UK Green Investment Company, is considering the investment in the
development, design and construction of an innovative power generation plant using a
gasification unit.

Preliminary information:
Due to the increased interest into the gasification field, VIVA POWER would like to
investigate the construction of the plant into the following four locations:
- Liverpool (UK)
- Melbourne (Australia)
- Johannesburg (South Africa)
- Palermo (Italy)
A summary of the financial parameters related to each location have been reported in the
appendix A.
Scope:
By developing an efficient and cleaner power generation system using renewable bio-syngas
(the product of biomass gasification) based on some existing technologies, the project will
design a new plant for sustainable power generation.
A power generation system with a NET ~1.0 MW(electric) output will be developed,
adopting the Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) supply available for each location (see appendix
B).
The plant design shall be focused on:
1) Maximise energy production and overall efficiency;
2) Minimise waste streams and carbon footprint;
3) Optimise the internal energy use, making the plant self-sustainable;
4) Maximise the uptime and include a qualitative analysis on energy storage systems;
5) Ensure safety and reliability of the system;
6) Minimise investment and operating costs;
7) Maximise yearly profit

In addition, according to the information provided, the main contractor should evaluate the
best location during the appraisal stage, considering the following elements for a Business
plan:
o Evaluate Min/Max production to make the process feasible and competitive
 o Preliminary cost estimation
 Preliminary estimation of raw material consumption and Operating
costs
 Competitors
 Stakeholders
 Sustainability Considerations
 Risks (technical and project)
 Feedstock cost fluctuation
 Product cost fluctuation
 Safety Risks
 Preliminary and simple economic evaluation
 Payback time
 Return on Investment
 Others
o Final selection of the process route with explanation of the selection criteria

See appendix C for additional economic parameters.

General guidance for the designer:

Whatever you must design there is always some information available. In the absence of
‘hard’ data, agree with the supervisor the necessary assumptions/estimates that will enable
the design to proceed. Write down all the available information, which might be applicable to
the design of this item of equipment. Itemise the information that is required, but not
available, for the design. DO NOT flounder at this stage, decide to begin (and begin to
decide!) and make the list of available (and required) information. DO NOT expect the
data to be absolute, this is not a textbook problem, some data will be contradictory,
and some decisions will be based upon engineering estimates. Some designers
become paralysed, unwilling to proceed, because the problem is not clearly defined, and all
necessary information is not available. Make a start, check the validity of any estimates as
the design proceeds.
You need a design method to be implemented. Refer to design books, handbooks, journal
articles, etc. Remember to do some background reading, determine the basic principles of
operation and the theory related to the design of the equipment. Never proceed with a
design method unless you are completely satisfied with its theoretical basis, and with your
knowledge of the associated chemical engineering principles. If you are not satisfied with
your understanding of the justification of the proposed design method - obtain reliable
advice. Refer to lesson learnt in module DEN5410.
Decision time - select the particular type of equipment to be used. Justify this choice - list the
advantages and disadvantages compared with alternative equipment or process schemes.
Never consider a design decision to be the only possible correct choice, or to be irreversible.
As the design proceeds to higher levels of detail, more appropriate choices may become
apparent. It may be necessary to make major changes; this is unfortunate in relation to the
design time already spent but not as serious as the consequences of producing an
unacceptable or non-optimal design.
APPENDIX A – COSTS and MARKET VALUES:

Fuel Liverpool Melbourne Johannesburg Palermo

RDF (Fuel) - 115 £/Tonne -125 £/Tonne -99 £/Tonne - 90 £/Tonne

Utilities
Steam (saturated@1 MPa) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2)
Cooling water (35 – 45 °C) 0.08 £/ Nm3 0.06 £/ Nm3 0.08 £/ Nm3 0.07 £/ Nm3
Chilled water (15 – 25 °C) 0.13 £/ Nm3 0.12 £/ Nm3 0.14 £/ Nm3 0.09 £/ Nm3
Process Water (0.7 MPa) 0.07 £/ Nm3 0.09 £/ Nm3 0.09 £/ Nm3 0.08 £/ Nm3
Chemicals

MDEA (N-Methyl-diethanolamine) 1100 £/Tonne 990 £/Tonne 950 £/Tonne 970 £/Tonne

MEA (Monoethanolamine) 1350 £/Tonne 1280 £/Tonne 1320 £/Tonne 1160 £/Tonne

DEA (Diethanolamine) 1150 £/Tonne 1080 £/Tonne 1100 £/Tonne 1150 £/Tonne

Activated Carbons 1100 £/Tonne 1250 £/Tonne 1270 £/Tonne 1180 £/Tonne

Caustic Soda (Solution @ 32% w/w) 720 £/Tonne 650 £/Tonne 580 £/Tonne 650 £/Tonne

Calcium Hypochlorite (Tablets) 990 £/Tonne 960 £/Tonne 995 £/Tonne 980 £/Tonne

Power

Power (kWh rate) -0.031£ /kWh -0.033£ /kWh -0.029£ /kWh -0.022£ /kWh

Notes:
Note 1 - Negative values are considered positive revenues.
Note 2 – Any additional chemical or consumable needed for the correct functioning of the
plant needs to be identified by the plant designer and its costs considered. The cost of these
additional elements are not bound to the specific location as long they come from a reliable
resource.
Note 3 – Any additional revenue stream may be identified by plant designer
APPENDIX B – RDF Composition:

Liverpool Melbourne Johannesburg Palermo

Moisture 12% w/w 13% w/w 13 %w/w 11% w/w

Proximate Analysis (on Dry Basis)
Volatile Matter 61.9% w/w 68.1% w/w 62.3% w/w 63.2% w/w
Fixed Carbon 18.1% w/w 18.9% w/w 11.7% w/w 17.0% w/w
Ash 20% w/w 13% w/w 16% w/w 19.8% w/w
Ultimate Analysis (on Dry Basis)
Carbon 43.7 % w/w 47.0% w/w 43% w/w 42% w/w
Oxygen 29% w/w 33.7% w/w 32% w/w 27.6% w/w
Hydrogen 4.3% w/w 4.1% w/w 6.5% w/w 3.9% w/w
Nitrogen 1.09% w/w 0.83% w/w 0.91% w/w 1.06% w/w
Chlorine 1.61% w/w 1.14% w/w 1.28% w/w 1.57% w/w
Sulfur 0.3% w/w 0.23% w/w 0.31% w/w 0.27% w/w
Ash 20% w/w 13% w/w 16% w/w 23.6% w/w

APPENDIX C – ECONOMIC PARAMETERS:

Liverpool Melbourne Johannesburg Palermo

Cost of Debt (%) 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7%

Cost of Equity (%) 3.5% 4.0% 3.9% 3.2%
If additional information is needed, the economic analysis shall be based on the LATEST AVAILABLE
INFORMATION accessible for FREE from RELIABLE sources.

Equity must be minimum of 40% of total capital in any location. The return on investment should be minimum
5% in any location.

Do not include taxes in your analysis.