2011 International Conference on Alternative Energy in Developing Countries and Emerging Economies
- 152 -
TABLE
IX
T
HE
BCR
AND
IRR
OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION POWER PLANT
Facter
Ft and CDM Escalation Rate
Case 1 (5%)
Case 2 (10%)
Case 3 (15%)
BCR
0.95
1.03
1.12
IRR
-
-
1.31%
From the results of the 3 cases as shown in Table 9,
project can not be invested even though BCR > 1. For
case
1
, BCR < 1, means that the benefits that obtain from
the project isn't worthwhile for investment.
The result of IRR, in case 1 and 2
can’t seek the value
of IRR, because of in this case has no return of the
project. IRR from case 3 showed that the number of IRR
was lower than that of interest rate.
However the result of an economic analysis is this
study based on the present technology and economic
indices and just rely on the data that use to determine for
investment, but it does not important factor in the
decision making in some situation because there still have
some other factors for consider such as for demonstration
purposes, cleaner power generation, healthiness and
reduction of environment problem as well as
externalities.
V. C
ONCLUSIONS
From the LCA analysis, it can be concluded that the
environmental impact in terms of Pt/kWh for the
electricity generation from biomass gasified of
1
kWh
correspond to environmental impacts of 9.90
u
10
-4
Pt.
The briquette production was the main impact and the
predicted percentage of impact was 57.73% of the total
impact. The environmental impact categories of Aquatic
Eutrophication EP(P), Human Toxicity Soil (HTS), and
Human
Toxicity Water
(HTW)
of
the
biomass
gasification power plant life cycle are the most highest
.
The economic in this study, electricity from a small-
scale biomass gasification power plant is still not suitable
for commercialization scale at this time due to the high
cost. But in the future, more advanced technologies could
be used to enhance the advantages of this kind of plant.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Thaksin University for
the financial support of the project. The authors also
thanks Solar and Wind Energy Research Unit for research
facility and financial support.
R
EFERENCES
[1] Department of Alternative Energy Development and
Efficiency.
Potential of Biomass in Thailand
2550/2551
. Ministry of Energy.
[2] Boonrod Sajjakulnukit, Rungrawee Yingyuad, Virach
Maneekhao,
Veerawan
Pongnarintasut,
S.C.
Bhattacharya, P. Abdul Salam.
Assessment of
sustainable energy potential of non-plantation
biomass resources in Thailand
. Biomass and
Bioenergy. Volume 29, Issue 3, 2005, pp. 214-224.
[3]
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).
2006.
ISO
14040
(2006):
Environmental
management- Life cycle assessment
–
Principles and
framework
Geneve.
[4] PréConsultants, LCA Software: SimaPro 7.2. 2010.
[5] Ecoinvent, C., The Ecoinvent Database v2.2. 2010.
[6] PréConsultants, Database Manual SimaPro, General
Introduction. 2010.
[7] Hauschild, M. and J. Potting, Spatial differentiation
in Life Cycle impact assessment - The EDIP2003
methodology. Institute for Product Development
Technical University of Denmark. 2003.
[8] Vorayos, N. (2005). Performance Analysis of
Continuous Solar Ethanol Distillation System
Including Environmental Impact. [Doctoral thesis.]
King Mongkut’s University of Technology,
Thonburi. pp. 65-177.
[9] Bank of Thailand. Interest Rates of Commercial
Banks. Available from
>
(accessed 11.1.11).
[10] Energy Policy and Planning Office. Regulation for
the purchase of power from renewable energy (in
Thai Available from
>
(accessed 7.3.11).
