A Review of Biomass IGCC Technology - Application To Sugarcane Industries

Reproduced with permission from Energy for Sustainable Development
Articles
A review of biomass integrated-gasifier/gas

turbine combined cycle technology and its
application in sugarcane industries, with an
analysis for Cuba
Eric D. Larson and Robert H. Williams
Center for Energy & Environmental Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
M. Regis L.V. Leal

Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar, CP 162, Piracicaba, SP – Brazil – 13400-970
Biomass integrated-gasifier/gas turbine combined cycle (BIG/GTCC) systems will be capable of

producing up to twice as much electricity per unit of biomass consumed and are expected to have
lower capital investment requirements per kW of capacity than condensing-extraction steam turbine
(CEST) systems, the present-day commercial technology for electricity production from biomass.
The significant levels of biomass available as by-products of sugarcane-processing offer a potentially
attractive application for BIG/GTCC systems. We review BIG/GTCC designs and ongoing demon-
stration and commercial projects and present estimates of the performance of two different
BIG/GTCC plant configurations integrated into sugar or sugar-and-ethanol factories. Because of
the importance of operating a cogeneration facility the year round in order to achieve attractive
economics, we present estimates of the availability of and collection cost for sugarcane trash (tops
and leaves) as a fuel supplementary to bagasse. We present estimated costs for electricity generated
by commercially mature BIG/GTCC systems using sugarcane-biomass for fuel in a Southeast Bra-
zilian context. The electricity costs are prospectively competitive with CEST-generated electricity,
which motivates our analysis of how many BIG/GTCC units might need building (and at what cost)
in order to reduce capital costs to competitive levels. We conclude with an assessment of the potential
impacts on the Cuban energy sector of the introduction of BIG/GTCC cogeneration systems in that
country’s sugarcane industry. Cuba’s high per-capita production of sugarcane and its heavy de-
pendence on oil for energy provide attractive conditions for a large-scale energy-from-sugarcane
program.
1. Introduction 250 GWfuel), equivalent to 17 % of today’s total coal con-

The biomass integrated-gasifier/gas turbine combined cy- sumption in developing countries.[1]
cle (BIG/GTCC) technology was first identified over a During the past decade, there have been substantial ef-
decade ago as an advanced technology with the potential forts undertaken worldwide to develop BIG/GTCC tech-
to be cost-competitive with conventional condensing-ex- nology and carry out pilot, demonstration, and commercial
traction steam-turbine (CEST) technology using biomass projects. This paper briefly reviews alternative BIG/
by-products of sugarcane-processing as fuel, while dra- GTCC system designs and technology commercialization
matically increasing the electricity generated per unit of efforts ongoing worldwide. We then present performance
sugarcane processed [see, for example, Larson et al., estimates for BIG/GTCC designs integrated with sugar or
1990]. Bagasse, the fibrous residue of sugarcane-milling, sugar/ethanol factories. We also review estimates of the
is one major biomass by-product fuel. Trash, the tops and availability and costs of sugarcane trash as a supplemen-
leaves of the sugarcane plant (Figure 1), is another sub- tary cogeneration fuel in Brazil, Cuba, and some other
stantial energy resource. Bagasse and trash each account Caribbean countries. We estimate the prospective costs of
for about one-third of the above-ground energy stored by electricity from BIG/GTCC systems under the assumption
sugarcane, with the remaining one-third stored as sugar. that the technology becomes commercially mature, and
The raw energy value of bagasse and trash associated we also estimate how many BIG/GTCC units would need
with the year-2000 global sugarcane harvest (1.3 billion building before capital and operating costs can be ex-
tonnes of sugarcane spread across more than 100 coun- pected to reach commercially mature levels.
tries) is an estimated 8 EJ/year (or a continuous average Finally, we present an analysis of the potential energy
54 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Articles
sector impacts of the widespread application of

BIG/GTCC systems at sugarcane-processing facilities in
a major sugarcane-producing country, Cuba. Cuba is cur-
rently the world’s 6th largest sugarcane producer, even
with cane production levels less than half its peak pro-
duction levels of the late 1980s. The relatively high per-
capita sugarcane production in Cuba provides the
potential for sugarcane-derived electricity (and ethanol)
to substantially reduce that country’s high fossil-fuel de-
pendence.
2. BIG/GTCC technology
2.1. Design concepts
The basic elements of a BIG/GTCC power plant include
a biomass dryer (ideally fueled by waste heat), a gasifier
for converting the biomass into a combustible fuel gas, a
gas cleanup system, a gas turbine-generator fueled by
combustion of the biomass-derived gas, a heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG) to raise steam from the hot ex-
haust of the gas turbine, and a steam turbine-generator to
produce additional electricity (Figure 2). Three variations
of this basic configuration are under commercial devel-
opment. Table 1 summarizes the main relative advantages
and disadvantages of the three variants. The principal dif-
ferences among the variants arise from the design of the
gasifier.
Variant 1 involves a fluidized-bed reactor operating at
atmospheric pressure using air for partial oxidation of the
biomass. One of the leading atmospheric-pressure gasifier
developers, TPS (Sweden), uses a second gasification
stage with a catalyst (dolomite) to reduce the content of
heavy hydrocarbon products (“tars”) that are part of the
gas produced in the first reactor. The elimination of tars
Figure 1. The sugarcane plant is required to prevent downstream operating difficulties
Figure 2. Simplified schematic of a biomass integrated-gasifier/gas turbine combined cycle (BIG/GTCC) system
Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 55

Articles
Table 1. Relative advantages and disadvantages of BIG/GTCC systems based on three different gasifier designs
Gasifier design Advantages Disadvantages
Low-pressure, - Easier fuel feed to gasifier than Variant 3 - Waste water produced from gas cleaning system
air blown - Conventional gas cleaning equipment - Fuel gas compressor adds cost, reduces efficiency
(Variant 1) - Economically suited for modest size - Limited economically to modest size
Low-pressure, - Easier fuel feed to gasifier than Variant 3 - Waste water produced from gas cleaning system
indirectly-heated - Conventional gas cleaning equipment - Need fuel-gas compressor, but smaller than Variant 1
(Variant 2) - Economically suited for modest size - Limited economically to modest size
- Higher energy content fuel gas - Gasifier operation more challenging than Variant 1
High-pressure, - Higher efficiency due to lack of gas compressor - More difficult fuel feed to gasifier than others
air blown - Dry hot-gas cleanup system - More challenging gas cleaning than others
(Variant 3) - Economically suited to larger scale than others - Higher NOx emissions than others
- Limited economically to larger scale
Table 2. BIG/GTCC-related commercial and demonstration projects worldwide
Location Notes
Varnamo, First fully-integrated BIG/GTCC demonstration plant: 6 MW electric plus 9 MW district heat from wood chips, using
Sweden Ahlstrom (now Foster Wheeler) pressurized gasifier and ceramic hot gas filters for gas cleanup. Plant commissioning
was completed in 1995. Several thousand hours of successful integrated operation were completed by end of 1999.
Decision taken early 2000 to “mothball” the facility due to high cost of continued operation.
Selby, North First fully-integrated commercial BIG/GTCC. Shakedown testing began in late 2000. The plant will produce 8 MWe
Yorkshire, UK from short-rotation plantation wood (poplar) in a TPS atmospheric-pressure gasifier, with subsequent cracking of tars,
cooling and filtering of raw gas, and wet scrubbing before compression to pressure needed for the gas turbine (ABB
Alstom “Typhoon” model g.t.).
Southern Bahia, A 32 MWe BIG/GTCC power plant using a scaled-up version of the Selby, UK, facility. Construction is expected to
Brazil begin in 2001. A General Electric LM2500 gas turbine modified for biomass-derived gas will be used. Fuel will be
eucalyptus wood chips from dedicated plantations and from purchased plantation harvesting residues. Gasifier and gas
turbine technology development has been ongoing for several years preceding start of construction.
Piracicaba, Project initiated in 1997 at Copersucar Technology Center as an extension of the Bahia, Brazil, project. Overall goal is
São Paulo, Brazil to evaluate and develop technology to enable BIG/GTCC to be used at sugarcane-processing facilities with bagasse and
trash as fuels. Work has included evaluating availability and quality of trash, agronomic routes to green cane harvesting
with trash recovery, gasification tests (at 2 MWth TPS pilot plant) of bagasse and trash, design integration of
BIG/GTCC into sugarcane facilities, and evaluation of overall environmental impact.
Burlington, Pilot plant demonstration of a 200 dry t wood/day Battelle Columbus Laboratory indirectly-heated gasifier. Testing
Vermont, USA started in 1998, with gas burned in existing boiler of a conventional wood-fired power plant. Plans are to install a gas
turbine for testing with slipstream of gas.
Greve-in-Chianti, Two 15 MWth atmospheric-pressure TPS gasifiers operating commercially since 1993 on pelletized refuse-derived fuel
Italy (200 t/day RDF). Product gas is burned in cement kilns or boiler.
that can arise from tar condensation. The product gas from for other useful purposes.
the tar “cracker” is cooled from about 900ºC to near-am- Variant 3 involves operating a fluidized-bed gasifier un-
bient temperature, cleaned, and compressed to the pres- der elevated pressure using air for the partial oxidation.
sure needed for injection into the gas turbine combustor. In this configuration, the gasifier product gas is cooled
Variant 2 involves operating the gasifier near atmos- only modestly, cleaned at elevated temperature using a
pheric pressure and using some form of indirect heating ceramic or sintered metal filter, and then passed to the
of the biomass, rather than partial combustion. In one gas turbine combustor. Leading developers of the pressur-
leading design (Battelle Columbus Laboratory, USA), hot ized gasifier concept include Foster-Wheeler (USA) and
sand carries heat to gasify most of the biomass, leaving Carbona (Finland).
behind some solid carbon (char). The char and sand are 2.2. Demonstration and commercial projects
circulated to a second reactor, where air is introduced to Since the early 1990s, there have been considerable tech-
burn the char and thereby reheat the sand. The product nology development and demonstration efforts relating to
gas passes through a tar cracking unit and is then cooled, BIG/GTCC commercialization, as summarized in Table 2.
cleaned and compressed to fuel the gas turbine. The heat The first commercial BIG/GTCC project will produce 8
in the combustion products leaving the char-burning re- MWe from wood chips grown on short-rotation planta-
actor is recovered to raise steam, to dry biomass fuel, or tions in the UK. Shakedown testing of the plant began at

Articles
the end of 2000. Additionally, construction of a 32 MWe tion, sugar crystallization, centrifuging, and drying. Juice
BIG/GTCC system is expected to begin in 2001 in Bahia, concentration is conducted in a continuous multiple-effect
Brazil. Both of these projects will utilize a design based evaporator where the initial concentration of 14 to 16º
on the TPS atmopsheric-pressure gasifier (Design Variant Brix (% solids by weight) is increased to 65 to 70º Brix.
1 in Table 1). The pilot-plant project in Varnamo, Sweden In this system “live” steam is fed to the first evaporator
(Table 2), has demonstrated the feasibility of BIG/GTCC effect, and the vapor that results from evaporating water
systems based on pressurized gasifiers (Design Variant 3). in each effect is used as heating steam for the following
The project in Burlington, USA is demonstrating a system effect and for other steps in the process. Normally four
based on indirectly-heated gasification (Design Variant 2). or five effects are used.
No demonstration projects are ongoing today involving The concentrated juice, now called syrup, is directed
BIG/GTCC systems operating on sugarcane biomass. to the vacuum pans where it is further concentrated under
However, in preparation for a pilot demonstration project, vacuum to around 91-93º Brix in either a continuous or
extensive testing and analysis is being conducted at the a batch process. This step produces a mixture called
Copersucar Technology Center (CTC) in the state of São massecuite, consisting of around 50 % crystals surrounded
Paulo, Brazil. Pilot scale atmospheric-pressure gasifica- by molasses (a sugar solution with remaining impurities).
tion tests with bagasse and trash are being carried out This massecuite, at a temperature of 65-75ºC, is dis-
under this program by TPS in Sweden. The objective of charged into crystallizers where a slow cooling takes
the CTC work is to understand in detail the key technical place, usually aided by water or air cooling.
and cost issues associated with introducing BIG/GTCC The cooled massecuite is sent to the centrifuges where
technology into sugarcane-processing facilities with the molasses and sugar crystals are separated. The process is
intention of designing and installing a pilot demonstration completed by washing of the sugar crystals with pressur-
unit in the next phase of the program. ized water or steam inside the centrifuges to further re-
move the molasses film from the crystal surface. The
3. The sugarcane-processing industries sugar is discharged from the centrifuges at a temperature
Understanding how BIG/GTCC systems might be intro- of 65-85ºC and moisture content of 0.5-1.5 % and directed
duced into sugarcane-processing facilities requires an un- to a dryer/cooler. The latter uses steam to heat the drying
derstanding of present sugarcane-processing practices. air, and it uses ambient air in the cooling section. The
The discussion here is based on current Brazilian prac- sugar leaving this unit is delivered for packaging or bulk
tices. The conversion of sugarcane into sugar or ethanol storage.
begins with the crushing and washing of crushed cane The molasses collected from the centrifuges can be re-
stalks, which results in separate streams of cane juice and turned to the vacuum pans for recovery of residual dis-
bagasse containing about 50 % moisture. The bagasse is solved sugar. Depending on the degree of sucrose
sent to the mill’s cogeneration system, where current prac- recovery desired, factories produce one, two or three
tice is to burn it to generate the steam and electricity massecuites (also referred to as one, two, or three strikes).
needed to run the factory. Existing cogeneration facilities The exhausted molasses, called final molasses, has several
have typically been designed to be relatively inefficient potential uses.
in order to ensure that little or no bagasse disposal costs At most sugar factories in Brazil, the final molasses is
are incurred. The amount of bagasse available for fuel is used as one of the feedstocks for production of fuel etha-
actually far greater than the amount needed to meet all nol at a distillery annexed to the sugar factory. The final
process energy demands. With efficient cogeneration sys- molasses is blended with part of the raw cane juice to
tems, a mill could generate electricity considerably in ex- constitute the fermentation feedstock. At a typical Brazil-
cess of factory needs, while still meeting all process ian sugar/ethanol production facility, 45-55 % of the su-
energy demands (as discussed in Section 4). The option crose entering the factory as cane is converted to sugar,
of selling electricity to the grid was generally not avail- with the balance being converted to ethanol. Such Brazil-
able when the factories were built, however, so there was ian factories use only one or two strikes for sugar, and
little incentive to have efficient cogeneration systems. divert the remaining molasses for blending with raw cane
Furthermore, rather than the current industry practice juice to be converted to ethanol.
of shutting down the cogeneration system during the time 3.2. Process energy demands
of the year when sugarcane is not being harvested (5 to A cogeneration facility serving a sugar or sugar/ethanol
6 months of the year), a cogeneration system selling factory must always satisfy the demand for steam to run
power to the grid could continue to operate during the the factory during the cane-crushing season. Cogeneration
off-season if a supplementary fuel were available. Sugar- technologies that convert a high fraction of the biomass
cane “trash”, the tops and leaves of the sugarcane plant fuel input into electricity, such as BIG/GTCC, correspond-
that are not used for fuel today, is a potentially attractive ingly convert a smaller fraction of the fuel input into proc-
supplementary fuel (as discussed in Section 5). ess steam and cannot satisfy process steam demand via
3.1. Making sugar or sugar and ethanol cogeneration unless measures are taken to improve the
In sugar production, steam is used throughout the facility efficiency with which steam is consumed during sugar or
in a sequence of processing steps to convert clarified cane ethanol production.
juice into final sugar. The steps include juice concentra- Factories producing sugar alone or co-producing sugar

Articles
Table 3. Alternative factory process energy demands and capital investments required to reduce energy demands to the indicated
levels at a facility processing 7000 tc/day
Sugar-only Sugar factory with annexed ethanol

factory[1] distillery[2]
Typical Steam Steam Typical Steam Steam

today saving I saving II today saving I saving II
Process steam consumption, kg/tc 500 340 280 500[3] 340[4] 280[5]
Process electricity consumption, kWh/tc 20 28 29 20 28 29
Total capital investment (million US$) - 1.60 2.20 - 3.33 4.86

Source: CTC estimates
Notes
1. These are rough estimates, since there are very few factories in the Copersucar cooperative that produce only sugar.
2. Based on 7000 tc/day milling rate, 14.1 % sucrose on cane, 13.8 % fiber on cane, 400 t/day sugar production, 353 m3/day ethanol production. Process steam condition is 2.5 bar,
saturated.
3. Mill with 5-effect evaporator, vacuum pan heated with steam bled from 1st evaporator effect, 6-bar steam for centrifuges, 10 kg/tc steam losses.
4. Mill with vapor bleeding from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd evaporator effects for juice heating, regenerative heat exchangers for juice heating (using stillage and juice as heat source), mechanical
stirrers for vacuum pans, 2nd stage evaporator bleeding for vacuum pans, and use of Flegstil technology and molecular sieves in the distillery.
5. In addition to modifications to achieve 340 kg/tc, the following changes are introduced: vapor bleeding from 4th effect for juice heating, additional set of juice heaters, vapor bleeding
from 5th effect for vacuum pans.
and ethanol today consume similar levels of process steam steam use and estimated the capital investments required
per tonne (t) of sugarcane crushed. A typical level of proc- to implement such modifications. Table 3 summarizes re-
ess steam consumption almost anywhere in the world to- sults from the CTC analyses.
day is 400 to 500 kg steam/t of sugarcane crushed (kg/tc).
As noted earlier, sugar factories have historically had 4. BIG/GTCC performance estimates
little incentive to minimize process steam demands. In Engineers at the CTC have also developed detailed per-
contrast, the process steam consumption in beet-sugar fac- formance calculations for alternative cogeneration systems
tories or corn-ethanol distilleries is far lower than in cane- operating on bagasse and trash and integrated into a sug-
based factories, because in those factories process energy arcane-processing facility. On the basis of the CTC’s cal-
is provided using costlier fossil fuels. Adopting some of culations, we illustrate the key differences between steam
the technologies commonly used in the beet-sugar or corn- turbine-based and gas turbine-based cogeneration. In all
ethanol industries would lead to substantial reductions in cases, we consider a cogeneration facility at a factory with
process steam demand in cane-processing industries. This a maximum crushing rate of 7000 tc/day and a capacity
in turn would enable a cogeneration system at a mill to factor of 87 %. Most of our analysis assumes a crushing
generate larger amounts of electricity. The possibility of season lasting 214 days (as in Southeast Brazil), but we
exporting electricity to earn additional revenue provides also examine the impact of a 150-day season (as in Cuba).
an incentive for adopting process steam reductions at A uniform mixture of bagasse and trash is assumed to be
cane-processing facilities. The return on investment from the fuel throughout the year in all cases. A uniform fuel
added electricity sales would typically be attractive. composition simplifies the design and operation of the
Detailed studies have shown that there is a potential gasifier or boiler to which it is fed.[2] It also facilitates
for reducing the process steam consumed in sugar and seasonal fuel storage by increasing the average moisture
ethanol production by up to half levels typical for the content of the stored fuel. (The low moisture content of
industry today [Ogden et al., 1990; 1991]. As interest in trash by itself increases fire risks.)
the export of electricity from sugar mills has risen, an 4.1. Partial BIG/GTCC design
increasing number of feasibility studies of process steam Until sufficient confidence in the reliability of
use reductions have been undertaken at specific mills. One BIG/GTCC technology is developed, it is unlikely that a
such study was carried out for the Hector Molina mill in sugar or sugar/ethanol producer will be willing to rely
Cuba, where a CEST cogeneration system will be installed entirely on a BIG/GTCC cogeneration system to meet its
as part of a project co-financed by the Global Environ- process energy demands. In this context, a “partial”
ment Facility (GEF). The plan for the Hector Molina pro- BIG/GTCC design can be envisioned that would utilize
ject includes a 32 % reduction in process steam some of the existing cogeneration equipment at a typical
consumption, from 500 kg/tc to 340 kg/tc [Guzman and existing factory to provide process steam requirements.
Valdes, 2000]. The particular design considered here assumes that the
Engineers at the CTC have assessed the potential for process steam demand is fully met by an existing 22-bar
reducing process steam demand in typical Brazilian cane- bagasse-burning boiler.[3] The steam from this boiler is
processing facilities [CTC, 1998]. They developed de- expanded to 2.5 bar in back-pressure steam turbines that
tailed designs for modifications required to reduce process run mechanical equipment in the factory (cane knives,

Articles
Figure 3. Schematic diagram for the “partial BIG/GTCC” system discussed in the text. All process steam demand is provided from the exhaust steam
of the back-pressure turbine drives. The electrical output of the gas turbine/steam turbine combined cycle augments the process mechanical and
electrical power provided by the back-pressure drives. Remaining electricity is available for export to the grid.
shredders, and crushers) and generate a small amount of turbine (CEST). Some steam is extracted at 22 bar to drive
electricity. The process steam consumption in the factory the existing back-pressure mechanical steam turbine
is assumed to be reduced to 340 kg/tc from the typical drives and turbine-generator, after which the expanded
present-day level of 500 kg/tc, as a result of steam con- steam is delivered for process use. The CEST was de-
servation investments in the factory. In parallel to the 22- signed with the same process steam demand and same
bar boiler, the design includes a gasifier supplying fuel total biomass consumption as the BIG/GTCC design.
to a gas turbine-generator, the hot exhaust from which is As detailed in Table 4, the partial BIG/GTCC system
used in a heat recovery steam generator to produce 82-bar designed by CTC engineers generates 28 MW of export-
steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. Also, a small able electricity (i.e., electricity in excess of process elec-
amount of bagasse is burned in a furnace for drying the tricity needs) during the milling season and 29 MW in
gasifier fuel to an average of 10 % moisture content (Fig- the off-season. The CEST generates 22 MW of exportable
ure 3).[4] The performance estimates for the gasifier, gas electricity throughout the year. All of the bagasse gener-
turbine, and heat recovery steam generator portion of the ated during the crushing season (140 kg dry matter/tc) is
plant were provided to the CTC by TPS, the Swedish gasi- consumed over the course of the year, and additionally
fier supplier and system integrator. The TPS design in- about 58 kg (dry matter) of trash is required as fuel/tc.[5]
cludes an atmopheric-pressure gasifier coupled with a 4.2. Pure BIG/GTCC design
raw-gas tar cracker and followed by a wet scrubber for Once sufficient confidence has developed in the reliability
gas cleaning and cooling. An intercooled fuel gas com- of the BIG/GTCC technology, “pure” BIG/GTCC cogen-
pressor is used to bring the gas to the pressure needed eration systems would likely be introduced. The perform-
for injection into a General Electric LM2500 gas turbine ance of such a system (Figure 5) has been estimated by
modified for biomass-derived gas [Neilson et al., 1999]. CTC engineers. In contrast to the “partial” BIG/GTCC
The TPS design is based on the design of the BIG/GTCC design, there is no bagasse-burning boiler in this system.
commercial demonstration plant planned for Bahia, Bra- Additional fuel is then available for the gasifier, enabling
zil [Waldheim and Carpentieri, 2001]. a larger gas turbine to be utilized. For simplicity, CTC
For comparison purposes, CTC engineers also devel- engineers modeled this design assuming it includes two
oped performance calculations for a high-pressure steam BIG/GTCC modules identical to the one used in the “par-
turbine cogeneration system (Figure 4). The CTC design tial” BIG/GTCC configuration. Steam at 82 bar pressure
for this system includes a boiler producing 82-bar steam from the heat recovery steam generator is expanded
that is expanded through a condensing extraction steam through a condensing extraction steam turbine, with one

Articles
Figure 4. Schematic diagram for a condensing-extraction steam turbine (CEST) cogeneration system. The design shown here is the same for the CEST
systems discussed in both Sections 4.1 and 4.2 in the text. All process steam demand is provided from the exhaust steam of the back-pressure turbine
drives. The electrical output of the condensing steam turbine augments the process mechanical and electrical power provided by the back-pressure
drives. Remaining electricity is available for export to the grid.
Table 4. Energy balances for “partial” BIG/GTCC and for CEST cogeneration at a mill processing 7000 tc/day during a crushing season length
characteristic of SE Brazil. The crushing season length is 214 days, during which the mill and cogeneration system operate with 87 %
capacity factor (total of 1.3 million tc crushed per year). Total biomass fuel consumption is the same for each cogeneration system.
CEST (82 bar steam) Partial BIG/GT
On-season Off-season Annual On-season Off-Season Annual
Electricity generation
Gas turbine, kW - - - 16,800 16,800 -
Condensing steam turbine, kW 23,910 21,976 - 13,033 12,432 -
Back-pressure steam turbine, electricity, kW 2,260 - - 2,483 - -
Back-pressure steam turbine mech. power, kW 4,045 - 4,045 -
Total, kW 30,215 21,976 - 36,361 29,232 -
Total, GWh 135 69 204 162 92 255
Total, kWh/tc 104 57 157 125 71 196
On-season process energy consumption
Steam (130ºC, 2.5 bar), kg/tc 340 - - 340 - -
kg/hr 99,200 - - 99,200 - -
Electrical & mechanical power, kW 8,239 - - 8,239 - -
kWh/tc 28 - - 28 - -
Exported electricity, kW 21,976 21,976 - 28,122 29,232 -
GWh 98 69 167 126 92 218
kWh/tc 75 53 129 96 71 167
Hourly biomass fuel consumption[1]
Bagasse, t50/hr 55.6 31.1 - 63.0 20.5 -
Trash, t15/hr 14.4 8.0 - 11.7 11.8 -
Total biomass fuel consumption[1]
Bagasse, thousand t50 per year 261 103 365 296 68 365
Trash, thousand t15 per year 64 25 90 52 37 89
Biomass dry matter consumed/tc[1]
Bagasse, t0/tc 0.100 0.040 0.140 0.114 0.026 0.140
Trash, t0/tc 0.042 0.017 0.059 0.034 0.024 0.058
Cogeneration efficiencies (%, HHV basis)
Electricity generation 14.3 18.6 15.5 16.5 28.1 19.4
Process steam generation 31.8 - 22.8 30.4 - 22.8
Electricity plus steam 46.1 18.6 38.3 46.9 28.1 42.2
Cogeneration efficiencies (%, LHV basis)
Source: CTC calculations
Note
1. The subscript refers to the moisture content of the fuel. For example, t50 is tonnes of material with 50 % moisture content, and t0 is tonnes of dry material (zero moisture content).

Articles
Table 5. Energy balances for “pure” BIG/GTCC and for CEST cogeneration at a mill processing 7000 tc/day during a crushing season length
characteristic of SE Brazil. The crushing season length is 214 days, during which the mill and cogeneration system operate with 87 %
capacity factor (total of 1.3 million tc crushed per year). Total biomass fuel consumption is the same for each cogeneration system.
CEST (82 bar steam) “Pure” BIG/GTCC

On-season Off-season Annual On-season Off-season Annual
Gas turbine - - - 33,600 33,600 -
Condensing steam turbine 33,651 30,638 - 12,270 24,877 -
Back-pressure steam turbine, electricity 2,850 - - 3,250 - -
Back-pressure steam turbine, mech. power 2,567 - - 2,567 - -
Total, kW 39,068 30,638 - 51,687 58,477 -
Total, GWh 174 97 271 230 185 415
Total, kWh/tc 134 75 209 177 142 320
On-season process energy consumption 280 - - 280 - -
Steam (130ºC, 2.5 bar), kg/tc
kg/hr 81,700 - - 81,700 - -
kWh/tc 29 - - 29 - -
GWh 137 97 234 193 185 378
kWh/tc 105 75 180 148 142 291
Bagasse, t50/hr 52.8 35.1 - 45.4 45.4 -
Trash, t15/hr 24.1 16.0 - 20.7 20.7 -
Bagasse, t0/tc 0.095 0.045 0.140 0.082 0.058 0.140
Trash, t0/tc 0.070 0.033 0.103 0.060 0.043 0.103
Note
extraction at 22 bar. The extracted steam is expanded in able electricity in this case is that process steam is not
back-pressure mechanical turbine drives and a small tur- needed during the off-season. As a result, a much larger
bine-generator. The exhaust steam from these back-pres- amount of steam is expanded fully through the steam tur-
sure units is used as process steam. The process steam bine in the off-season. In this configuration, all of the
demand in this case was assumed to be reduced to 280 bagasse generated during the crushing season is consumed
kg/tc through capital investments in steam conservation. over the course of the year, and additionally about 103
For comparison purposes, CTC engineers also calcu- kg (dry matter) of trash are required per tc.
lated the performance of a high-pressure steam turbine The CEST system consumes the same amount of fuel
system with the same process steam demands and biomass annually as the BIG/GTCC system and produces about
consumption as for the pure BIG/GTCC case. 31 MW of exportable power the year round.
As detailed in Table 5, the pure BIG/GTCC system pro- Figure 6 summarizes the power export potential in
duces about 43 MW of exportable electricity during the terms of kWh/tc for both the “partial” and “pure”
milling season and 58 MW during the off-season. The BIG/GTCC cases and their counterpart CEST systems.
main reason for the higher off-season production of export- The partial BIG/GTCC produces 167 kWh/tc of exported

Articles
Figure 5. Schematic diagram for the “pure BIG/GTCC” system discussed in the text. All process steam demand is provided from the exhaust steam of
the back-pressure turbine drives. The electrical output of the combined gas turbine/steam turbine cycle augments the process mechanical and electrical
power provided by the back-pressure drives. Remaining electricity is available for export to the grid.
Figure 6. Electricity generated in excess of process electricity consumption at cane-processing facilities for milling season length typical for SE Brazil.
Results are shown for the alternative cogeneration systems shown in Figures 3-5. The amount of bagasse and trash consumed in each case is indicated.
(See Tables 4 and 5 for details.)

Articles
Figure 7. Electricity generated in excess of process electricity consumption at cane-processing facilities for milling season length typical for Cuba.
Results are shown for the alternative cogeneration systems shown in Figures 3-5. The amount of bagasse and trash consumed in each case is indicated.
Additional details for the right-hand set of bars is given in Table 6.
electricity on an annual basis, or 29 % more than the 129 design of Table 5 requires about 4 % of the fuel consumed
kWh/tc produced by its counterpart CEST system. The at the plant to be burned to generate hot gas for drying.
pure BIG/GTCC produces 62 % more exportable power A more integrated system design would recover waste
than its counterpart CEST system (291 kWh/tc versus 180 heat from the HRSG and other sources to dry the
kWh/tc). biomass.[6] Other design changes, such as optimizing the
4.3. Cogeneration performance in the Cuban context steam pressure from the HRSG and better overall thermal
The performance results in Figure 6 would be different integration, could further improve efficiency.
for cogeneration systems integrated into Cuban sugar fac- The potential for increasing electricity generating effi-
tories, primarily because of the shorter crushing season ciency through such improvements can be assessed from
in Cuba. The requirement for fuel to supplement bagasse a detailed calculation presented by Consonni and Larson
at a sugar factory with a processing capacity of 7000 [1996] for an optimized BIG/GTCC system using the
tc/day would be greater in Cuba than in Brazil. If an ade- same gasifier design considered for Table 5. The electric
quate amount of supplementary fuel were available, how- generating efficiency of a 26 MW stand-alone BIG/GTCC
ever, a cogeneration facility associated with a factory system in that case was 34 % (higher heating value basis).
crushing for 150 days would generate larger amounts of For comparison, the electric efficiency in Table 5 (for a
electricity (on an annual basis) per tc than with the same 59 MW system) for the off-season operating period,
factory crushing for 214 days (Figure 7 and Table 6). The which would be equivalent to a stand-alone power gen-
trash requirement in this case (220 dry kg/tc for the “pure erating efficiency, is 28 % (HHV basis).[7]
BIG/GTCC” case) is more than double the trash required In the longer term, additional technological innovations
with the longer crushing season. will further improve performance. An indication of the
4.4. Performance estimates for the long term possibilities in this regard is the calculated electrical ef-
The BIG/GTCC performance shown in Table 5 is used as ficiency of 40 % (HHV) for a 76 MW electric BIG/GTCC
the basis for subsequent analysis in this paper. It repre- system utilizing a pressurized gasifier (instead of the non-
sents a conservative system design that could be the basis pressurized gasifier in Table 5) and an advanced gas tur-
for initial introduction of BIG/GTCC systems into the bine.[8]
sugar industry. Once a commercial BIG/GTCC industry
is established, however, performance could improve con- 5. Biomass fuels for cogeneration at a sugar or
siderably over the levels shown in Table 5 as a result of ethanol factory
component and system optimization. For example, the This section examines whether there would be suffi-
strategy for drying the biomass feed to the gasifier in the cient sugarcane biomass available at a facility to fuel

Articles
Table 6. Energy balances for “pure” BIG/GTCC and for CEST cogeneration at a mill processing 7000 tc/day during a crushing season length
characteristic of Cuba. The crushing season length is 150 days, during which the mill and cogeneration system operate with 87 % capacity
factor (total of 0.896 million tc crushed per year). Total biomass fuel consumption is the same for each cogeneration system.
CEST (82 bar steam) “Pure” BIG/GTCC

On-season Off-season Annual On-season Off-season Annual
Gas turbine - - - 33,600 33,600 -
Condensing steam turbine 37,308 34,322 - 12,270 24,877 -
Back-pressure steam turbine, electricity 2,850 - - 3,250 - -
Back-pressure steam turbine, mech. power 2,567 - - 2,567 - -
Total, kW 42,725 34,322 - 51,687 58,477 -
Total, GWh 130 157 287 159 267 425
Total, kWh/tc 147 175 321 177 298 475
On-season process energy consumption
Steam (130ºC, 2.5 bar), kg/tc 280 - - 280 - -
kg/hr 81,700 - - 81,700 - -
kWh/tc 29 - - 29 - -
GWh 105 157 262 133 267 400
kWh/tc 118 175 292 148 298 446
Bagasse, t50/hr 38.4 26.5 - 31.2 31.2 -
Trash, t15/hr 36.8 25.4 - 30.0 30.0 -
Bagasse, t0/tc 0.069 0.071 0.140 0.056 0.084 0.140
Trash, t0/tc 0.107 0.110 0.217 0.088 0.130 0.218
Note
the cogeneration systems described in the previous sec- is to burn off the trash just before the harvest to facilitate
tion. harvesting of the stalks. Pollution from burning of cane
5.1. Bagasse fields is leading to restrictions on this practice in some
The percentage of the bare cane stalk that is bagasse var- parts of the world. For example, in Brazil a 1998 law
ies with the cane variety. A typical level in Brazil is 140 established a timetable for eliminating pre-harvest burn-
dry kg of bagasse per tonne of milled cane stalk (140 ing: for areas with a grade under 12 % (considered har-
kg0/tc).[9] After milling, the bagasse contains about 50 % vestable by machine), all burning must end by 2006; for
water, so bagasse availability is often quoted in terms of areas with a grade above 12 %, all burning must end by
bagasse with 50 % moisture content. In this case, the Bra- 2013. Such restrictions are likely to be introduced in many
zilian figure is 280 kg50/tc. This level of bagasse is fairly countries in the future.
typical for sugarcane worldwide. Motivated by the growing awareness of the negative
5.2. Trash environmental impacts of cane-burning and, especially, by
The practice in most countries where sugarcane is grown the recognition of the potential energy value of sugarcane

Articles
trash, efforts have been made over the past 15 years to Table 7. Estimated cost of trash bales delivered to a sugar/ethanol
develop the capability for recovering and using trash as factory (São Paulo state, Brazil)
a fuel for electricity generation in a number of countries, Activity Cost, US$ Fraction
including Australia [Schembri and Carson, 1997], Brazil of total
Per dry t Per GJ
[Leal, 1995], Colombia [Cock et al., 2000], the Domini- cost, %
can Republic [Lopez, 1987], India [Anonymous, 2000],
Windrowing 0.68 0.040 3.5
the Philippines [Varua, 1987], Puerto Rico [Phillips, 1987;
Allison, 1987], Thailand [Winrock, 1991], and elsewhere. Baling[1] 4.43 0.260 23
5.2.1. Brazil Loading of bales 1.64 0.097 8.4
One of the most intensive efforts to understand and design Field tractor/trailering 1.35 0.079 6.9
trash recovery and transport systems is the program being
Transport to mill 2.20 0.129 11
carried out at the CTC. Measurements there indicate that
the total amount of trash produced by sugarcane varieties Unloading 0.59 0.035 3.0
commonly grown in Southeast Brazil ranges from 110 to Total direct cost 10.89 0.640 56
170 kg0/tc, with an average of 140 kg0/tc [Macedo et al., Agronomic cost2 8.66 0.510 44
2001]. Total net cost 19.55 1.150 100
The CTC has analyzed a number of concepts for ma-
Source: Macedo et al., 2001.
chine harvesting and delivering of trash to a mill’s cogen-
Notes
eration facility. It estimates that the maximum amount of
1. Rectangular bales (0.8×0.87×1.90 meters) with an average weight of 306 kg and with
trash that can physically be recovered and delivered to a 15 % moisture content and 5 % soil. The higher heating value of trash with 15 %
cogeneration facility is about 89 % of the total trash pro- moisture content is 14.5 MJ/kg15. The lower heating value is (13.0 MJ/kg15).
duced [Macedo et al., 2001]. This corresponds to about 2. The main agronomic cost of trash removal considered here is the additional herbicide
125 kg0/tc on average, which is well above the level re- required when there is an insufficient trash blanket on the field. Other costs include a
reduction in cane productivity due to compaction, and a lower degree of field terracing
quired to fuel the cogeneration systems described in Ta- that can be done. One positive agronomic impact (resulting in a cost reduction) is that
bles 4 or 5, but below that required with the shorter soil preparation is easier without a trash blanket present.
crushing season (as in Table 6).
The CTC estimates the direct cost of collecting trash Detailed estimates developed by the Cuban Ministry of
from the field, baling it, and transporting the bales to the Sugar [Egusquiza, 1994; Egusquiza and Gonzalez, 2000]
mill to be $ 10.9/dry t ($ 10.9/t0), or $ 0.64/GJHHV indicate that the total trash production of Cuban sugarcane
[Macedo et al., 2001].[10] The total net cost of delivered varieties is considerably higher per tc than those found in
trash must also account for the substantial agronomic im- Brazil. The estimated trash production in Cuba is nearly
pacts of removing trash, including loss of recycled nutri- 200 kg0/tc (Table 8), compared with 140 kg0/tc in Brazil.
ents. The largest component of the agronomic cost is In Cuba today, about half of the trash (97 kg0/tc in the
additional herbicide used to replace the weed-suppressing case of machine-harvested cane) is left on the field after
trash blanket that remains on the field after conventional harvest, about one-quarter (47 kg0/tc) is concentrated at
machine harvesting. Agronomic costs add an additional the cleaning stations, and an additional one-quarter (46
80 % to the direct recovery costs, resulting in a total net kg0/tc) is delivered to the mill with the cane (Table 8).
cost of delivered trash bales of $ 1.2/GJHHV (Table 7). If a trash recovery level similar to that achieved in Bra-
5.2.2. Cuba zil (89 %) could be realized in Cuba, the total trash that
The sugarcane harvesting system in Cuba is unique among could be delivered to a cogeneration facility would be
cane-producing countries in two important respects. First, some 174 kg0/tc on average. Such a level is still shy of
an estimated 70 % of the sugarcane crop is harvested by the level needed to operate the cogeneration systems de-
machine without prior burning, which is far higher than scribed in Table 6, where the crushing season lasts only
for any other country. For example, only 20 % of Brazil’s 150 days.
sugarcane is machine harvested at present. The second The costs for recovering and delivering trash to a mill
unique feature of Cuban harvesting practice is the long- site in Cuba are likely to be considerably lower than the
standing commercial use of “dry cleaning stations” to re- costs estimated in Table 7 for Brazil since some trash is
move trash from the cane stalks before the stalks are already concentrated at cleaning stations and since rail
transported to the crushing mills. Cuba has over 900 transport of trash to the mill site is feasible. Our “guess-
cleaning stations to serve its 156 sugar mills. The cleaning timate” is that direct costs per t of trash delivered to a
stations are generally not adjacent to the mills, but are mill can be reduced by 50 % relative to the $ 10.9/t0
connected to mills by a low-cost cane delivery system – estimated for Brazil. Assuming the costs of agronomic
a dedicated rail network with more than 7000 km of track. impacts are the same as in Brazil, the total cost of deliv-
The cleaning stations take in green machine-cut or manu- ered bales in Cuba would then be $ 14.1/t0, or $
ally cut cane. Trash is removed from the stalk and blown 0.83/GJHHV.
out into a storage area. The stalks travel along a conveyor 5.2.3. Other Caribbean countries
to waiting rail cars. The predominant practice today is to Measurement of trash production by cane species typi-
incinerate the trash at the cleaning station to reduce the cally grown in some other Caribbean countries show ra-
“waste” volume. tios of trash-to-millable stalk that are even higher than

Articles
Table 8. Mass balance of sugarcane biomass in Cuba. This table shows the disposition of sugarcane stalks and cane trash throughout the
harvesting, transport, and milling cycle, as presently practiced in Cuba. About 89 % of the cane standing on the field before harvest actually
reaches the crushing mills. About half of the trash produced by the sugarcane crop is left behind on the field after harvest. An additional
24-30 % is left at the cane cleaning stations, and 17 % to 24 % is crushed in the mills with the cane.
Machine harvested fields Manually harvested fields

Cane stalks Trash Trash Bare stalks Trash Trash
(%) (%) (dt/tc)[1] (%) (%) (dt/tc)[2]
Standing in the field before harvest 100 100 0.195 100 100 0.195
Left in field after harvest 5.50 50.0 0.097 1.88 47.3 0.092
Diverted for seed 2.49 1.32 0.003 6.11 5.50 0.011
Losses in transport to cleaning station 0.94 0.50 0.001 0.92 0.47 0.001
Left at cleaning station 0.94 24.0 0.047 1.64 29.5 0.058
Losses in transport to mill 0.90 0.24 0.001 0.89 0.17 0.000
Delivered to and crushed at the mill 89.2 23.9 0.046 88.6 17.1 0.033
Source: Egusquiza, 1994. See also [Egusquiza and Gonzalez, 2000].
Note
1. This is tonnes of dry trash per tonne of machine-harvested cane delivered and crushed at the mill.
2. This is tonnes of dry trash per tonne of manually-harvested cane delivered and crushed at the mill.
those reported for Cuba. Phillips [1987] cites a study done of measurements made for several Puerto Rican cane va-
in the Dominican Republic for the Dominican Electric rieties that show an average of 340 kg0/tc (Table 9). In
Corporation which indicated, on the basis of measure- some of the first work published about the potential for
ments, “a rather consistent correlation between cane ton- utilizing trash for energy, Alexander [1985] indicates an
nage and barbojo (trash) tonnage per hectare. On the average trash production associated with typical Puerto
average, for each ton of cane there is 0.66 ton of barbojo Rican sugarcane in the early 1980s to be 280 kg0/tc.[11]
at a field moisture content of 50 % (by weight) when 5.3. Energy cane
harvested,” i.e., 330 kg0/tc. Phillips also presents results Alexander also indicates that there is a potential for even
larger trash production via breeding of “high-tonnage
Table 9. Trash production per tonne of millable cane for different cane”, which he refers to as “energy cane”. He observes
cane varieties and locations, as measured in Puerto Rico that energy cane can yield more trash and more sugar per
hectare than conventional sugarcane, even though sugar
Location Cane Millable Trash Ratio of trash
variety[1] cane (dry to millable content per tc would be lower than with conventional
(t/ha) t/ha) cane (dry t/tc) cane. The high yields of both components result from a
combination of denser spacing of cane plants and selective
PR 980 123.1 44.8 0.36
breeding for high fiber production. On the basis of mean
Barahona
PR 980 71.3 25.4 0.35 yield values of energy-cane trials over five crop years and
using four varieties and two row spacings, Alexander
PR 980 34.7 29.1 0.84
shows that total dry matter per ha with energy cane could
PR 1028 86.2 23.5 0.27 be 3 to 4 times as large as with conventional Puerto Rican
Quisqueya sugarcanes, while the total fermentable solids (sugar) pro-
PR 1028 33.3 14.6 0.44
duction per ha will more than double. [See Figures 3-7
PR 980 69.7 21.3 0.31 in Alexander, 1985].
PR 980 60.7 22.8 0.38 Alexander points out that sugar producers historically
have dismissed the idea of milling high-fiber cane, despite
PR 1028 52.6 13.5 0.26
Consuelo higher sugar production per ha, because much more ton-
CP 5243 52.1 18.3 0.35 nage must be milled than with conventional sugarcane to
extract a comparable amount of sugar. The possibility of
CP 5243 46.9 16.5 0.35
revenues from increased sale of electricity with higher-
CP 5243 39.2 11.0 0.28 fiber sugarcanes have not been considered in such think-
Average[2] 0.34 ing. For certain market conditions (prices of electricity
and sugar and/or ethanol), the added revenue from elec-
Source: Phillipps, 1987.
tricity sales may make the high-fiber cane option attrac-
Notes
tive.
1. The same cane varieties give a wide range of production per hectare, depending on
cultivation practices. For example the PR 980 variety at Barahona yielding 123 t/ha is
with irrigation.
6. Cogeneration economics
2. This is the average of all values in the table, excluding the anomalous 0.84 value. Here we assess the prospective economics associated with
electricity production from sugarcane biomass in association

Articles
Table 10. Inputs to cost analysis
Factory characteristics
Cane crushing capacity, tc/day 7000
Total amount of sugarcane crushed, tc/year 1,300,000
Sugar yield from cane, tonnes of sugar per tc[1] 0.13
Ethanol yield from cane, liters per tc[1] 85
Cane processing costs[2,3]
Capital investment to install an ethanol distillery[4] (million $) 6.39
Operating and maintenance costs
Cane crushing, $ per tonne of cane crushed[5] 1.88
Sugar factory (cane juice processing to sugar), $ per tonne of sugar[6] 38.2
Ethanol distillery (annexed to sugar factory), $ per m3 ethanol[7] 72.3
Cost of sugarcane delivered to crushing mill, $ per tonne cane[8] 12
Cogeneration capital costs, O&M costs, and fuel consumption CEST BIG/GTCC
Installed generating capacity, MW[9] 33.7 58.5
Capital investments charged to cogeneration plant
Cogeneration plant, million $ 50.4 86.8
For process steam reductions at sugar-only factory,[10] million $ 2.20 2.20
For process steam reductions at sugar/ethanol factory,[10] million $ 4.86 4.86
Operating and maintenance costs, million $ per year[11] 1.457 2.478
Operating labor, million $ per year 0.343 0.382
Fixed maintenance, million $ per year 1.008 1.736
Consumables (excluding fuel), million $ per year 0.106 0.361
Biomass fuel consumed, thousand dry t per year[12]
Bagasse 126 126
Trash 194 194
Products sold for revenue, sugar-only factory
Sugar, tonnes per year 168994 168994
Export electricity, GWh per year[13] 234 378
Products sold for revenue, sugar-ethanol factory
Sugar, tonnes per year 84497 84497
Ethanol, m3 per year 55248 55248
Export electricity GWh per year[13] 234 378
Notes
1. These yields refer to production of either sugar only or ethanol only. Thus, for a mill producing both sugar and ethanol, the yields apply only to that fraction of the total cane crushed
that goes toward making each product. The yield values here are typical of what are achieved in Southeast Brazil today. Brazil is generally acknowledged to have one of the most
advanced sugarcane-processing industries in the world. The levels shown here for Brazil should be achievable elsewhere over time.
2. These costs are based on typical current practice in Southeast Brazil. They exclude the costs for process steam and electricity, which are accounted for elsewhere in the cost analysis.
3. Because new sugar mills are rarely built, no initial capital cost is factored into the cane processing cost. However, capital replacement (12 %/year) is included as part of the O&M
costs.
4. For a distillery with the capacity to convert about half of the sucrose in the incoming cane into ethanol. See Table 13.
5. These costs include capital replacement costs (12 %/year).
6. These costs include capital replacement costs (12 %/year). The costs are for a sugar factory that processes about half of the sucrose in the incoming cane into sugar (with the other
half being converted to ethanol). However, the cost per tonne of sugar would be approximately the same if the factory were instead converting all of the sucrose to sugar.
7. These are based on the average operating and maintenance costs (excluding capital replacement costs) for Copersucar mills.
8. Brazil is acknowledged to have one of the lowest sugarcane production costs in the world. The indicated cost is widely achieved in Southeast Brazil. Costs as low as $ 8/tc are
achieved in some parts of Southeast Brazil.
9. These are the combined capacities of the condensing steam turbine plus gas turbine, as shown in Table 5. The capacities shown in Table 5 exclude parasitic power consumed within
the steam cycle or gas turbine cycle.
10. See Table 3.
11. Operating labor costs are based on estimates by CTC using Brazilian wage rates (Table 11). Annual fixed maintenance cost is estimated as 2 % of initial capital investment.
Consumables are as estimated by CTC engineers (Table 12).
12. From Table 5, these are the dry matter contained in the bagasse and trash that are consumed. The bagasse and trash are assumed to be delivered to the cogeneration plant gate
with 50 % and 15 % moisture content, respectively. In reality, since a mix of bagasse and trash would be stored for off-season use, some further air-drying is likely. In that case,
efficiencies would be higher than those indicated in Table 5.
13. From Table 5.

Articles
Table 11. Operating labor costs for cogeneration systems, based on Brazilian wage rates[1]
Job description Monthly CEST BIG/GTCC

rate ($)[2] [3] [3]
Jobs $/yr Jobs $/yr
Manager 5320 1 63840 1 63840

Supervisor 2090 3 75240 3 75240
BIG/GT operators 532 - - 14 89376
Boiler operators 532 9 57456 - -
Operator (front-end loader) 532 6 38304 6 38304
Operator (bale shredder) 532 3 19152 3 19152
Conveyor operator 532 3 19152 3 19152

Fuel-feeder operator 532 6 38304 6 38304
Auxiliaries and relief 532 5 31920 6 38304

Totals 36 343368 42 381672
Notes
1. For the cogeneration plant configurations described in Table 5 operating with three shifts of workers, plus one auxiliary/relief person for each group of 6 operators.
2. Total compensation, which includes salary plus additional amount equal to 90 % of salary to cover benefits, social costs, etc.
3. Full-time equivalent.
Table 12. Cost of consumables for cogeneration systems cussed in Section 7.) Table 10 summarizes key inputs to
our cost analyses. The notes in Table 10 refer to additional
Unit Annual Cost Cost
detailed breakdowns of investment costs to achieve proc-
quantity quantity $/unit $/year
ess steam use reductions (Table 3), cogeneration operating
BIG/GTCC[1] labor and consumables costs (Tables 11 and 12, respec-
Materials[2] 254300 tively), and ethanol distillery investment costs (Table 13).
Total installed capital costs for the CEST and
Diesel fuel (baler), l/hr 15 66929 0.35 23600
BIG/GTCC facilities are especially important inputs. The
Diesel fuel (tractor), l/hr 21 160630 0.35 56700 total investment for the CEST system, $ 1500/kW, is
Lube oil, m3/hr 8 8 1014 8100 based on the estimate in a feasibility study for a 33 MW
CEST project planned for the Hector Molina sugar mill
Treated water, m3/hr 13 99177 0.18 17900
in Cuba [MINAZ, 1999]. The capital cost for the
Total 360600 BIG/GTCC plant is based on estimates by engineers at
CEST [1] the CTC and on the analysis in Section 7 of the likely
costs for commercially mature stand-alone electric-power
Treated water, m3/hr 13 99177 0.18 17900
BIG/GTCC systems. In Section 7 the cost for such sys-
Lube oil, m3/hr 8 8 1014 8100 tems are estimated to be $ 1400/kW at a scale of 60 MW.
Diesel fuel (baler), l/hr 15 66929 0.35 23600 This estimate is consistent (within the accuracy range of
preliminary cost estimation) with cost estimates that have
Diesel fuel (tractor), l/hr 21 160630 0.35 56700
been made by several others for commercially mature
Total 106200 plants [Carpentieri and Macedo, 2000; Craig and Mann,
Notes 1996; Elliott and Booth, 1993; Faaij et al., 1998; Weyer-
1. For Nth plant versions of the cogeneration plant configurations described in Table 5. haeuser et al., 1995]. For the same electric output capacity,
No active control of NOx emissions is assumed for either case. a BIG/GTCC cogeneration system will have a higher cost
2. Includes gasifier bed material, filter material, chemicals, and miscellaneous other con- per kW than a stand-alone system due to added costs as-
sumables
sociated with process steam production. The cost estimate
shown in Table 10 for the BIG/GTCC cogeneration sys-
with sugar production. We also consider electricity pro- tem is $ 1480/kW.
duction in conjunction with combined sugar and ethanol Our cost analysis considers a 7000 tc/day capacity fa-
production, when half of the sucrose in the cane is con- cility operating in a Southeast Brazil context, i.e., with a
verted to sugar and half to ethanol. We compare the over- 214-day crushing season and 87 % capacity factor. Thus,
all economics for BIG/GTCC cogeneration with that for 1.3 million t (Mt) of cane are crushed annually at the mill.
CEST cogeneration. Our assessment uses capital and op- Figure 8 illustrates the financial model we consider here.
erating cost estimates for commercially mature BIG/ We assume that the sugar or sugar-and-ethanol producer
GTCC technology, i.e., costs that are projected for pays the cost of delivered sugarcane. The cogenerator
BIG/GTCC technology after several systems have been pays for collection and delivery of trash. Bagasse is de-
installed. (BIG/GTCC cost reduction trajectories are dis- livered from the cane-crushing mills to the cogenerator in

Articles
Table 13. Capital investment required to add an ethanol distillery to range of trash costs shown. The gap in generating cost
an existing sugar factory.[1] The capacity of the distillery is 300 to between the two systems grows as the trash price in-
350 m3 anhydrous ethanol per day, which is approximately the creases due to the higher efficiency of the BIG/GTCC
capacity of a distillery attached to a 7000 tc/day crushing mill
converting half of the available sucrose into ethanol.
system. As a reference, the shaded vertical bar on the left
in Figure 9 indicates the range in required electricity sale
Thousand US$ price for the Hector Molina CEST project: 5.8 to 7.5
¢/kWh [MINAZ, 1999]. The generating costs calculated
Fermentation and distillation plants 4577
for the BIG/GTCC and CEST systems both fall within
Ethanol storage tanks 1220 this range for the trash prices shown.
Table 14 shows sub-components of the cost of electric-
Stillage handling and storage 464
ity when the trash price is $ 1.2/GJHHV, the average cost
Laboratory 6 estimated for Southeast Brazil (Table 7). The busbar cost
is dominated by capital charges, which are slightly higher
Spare parts warehouse 6
for the BIG/GTCC than for the CEST. Total generating
Fuse oil system 15 cost is lower for the BIG/GTCC than for the CEST, how-
ever, due to the much lower cost per kWh for trash arising
Cooling water system 100
from the higher efficiency of the BIG/GTCC. The cost of
Total 6388 sugar production shown in Table 14 is representative of
Note
current average production costs in Southeast Brazil.
1. Estimated by CTC engineers. The estimate is consistent with an independent quote
Busbar electricity costs would be reduced if carbon di-
from NG (a packaged distillery supplier in São Paulo state, Brazil) provided to the CTC. oxide emission reductions were credited against generat-
The NG quote was for US$ 5.5 million for a 350 m3/day facility, including fermentation, ing costs. Electricity from sugarcane biomass would have
distillation, molecular sieve dehydration, and buildings, but excluding foundations and
ethanol storage tanks.
relatively low levels of associated net emissions of carbon
dioxide: on average, the CO2 emitted at the cogeneration
facility would be completely reabsorbed in subsequent re-
growth of the sugarcane, and the only net CO2 emissions
to the atmosphere would be the relatively small amounts
arising from use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers and agri-
cultural machinery operations [Moreira, 2000]. If the su-
garcane-derived electricity were to displace electricity
generated from fossil fuels, there would be net savings in
CO2 emissions per kWh generated. If the net CO2 emis-
sion reductions correspond to those avoided by not burn-
ing oil to generate electricity, a scenario appropriate for
Cuba, then the saved CO2 would be 0.22 kgC/kWh gen-
erated. If a carbon credit of $ 20/tC displaced were avail-
able – a value currently offered by the Prototype Carbon
Fund of the World Bank[12] – cost of electricity shown in
Figure 9 would be reduced by 44 mills/kWh ($
0.0044/kWh). The impact of such a carbon credit is also
shown in Table 14.
Figure 8. Cost model for electricity production in conjunction with sugar 6.2. Production costs for electricity, sugar, and ethanol
production. The sugar producer buys sugarcane and sells sugar. The co- In conjunction with a factory producing both sugar and
generator buys trash and sells electricity. The sugar producer and cogen- ethanol from sugarcane, the cost of cogenerated electricity
erator exchange bagasse for process steam and electricity. would be slightly higher than with a sugar-only factory,
because steam conservation investments, which are
exchange for process steam and electricity, which is ef- charged against electricity production, are higher for a
fectively the arrangement at most sugar or sugar/ethanol sugar/ethanol factory than for a sugar-only factory. (See
factories today. We use a capital charge rate of 20 % per Table 3.) Also, the difference between the cost of
year in all calculations. Investments to reduce process BIG/GTCC and CEST electricity would be slightly
steam consumption are charged to the cogenerator, since greater, because the same steam conservation investments
the benefit arising from such investments is an increased would be spread over a higher number of kWh with the
level of electricity generation. BIG/GTCC.
6.1. Production costs for electricity and sugar Table 15 gives a breakdown of sugar/ethanol/electricity
Figure 9 shows the busbar production cost for electricity costs when sugarcane trash costs $ 1.2/GJ. The ethanol
cogenerated at a BIG/GTCC facility and at a CEST facil- cost shown there ($ 0.26/liter (l), without carbon credit),
ity as a function of the cost of trash to the cogenerator would enable ethanol to compete as a gasoline blend-
in the case where the factory is one that makes sugar only. stock when the crude oil price is close to $ 30 per barrel
The BIG/GTCC yields a lower busbar cost over the entire (bbl).[13] This ethanol cost is representative of current

Articles
Figure 9. Cost of electricity production as a function of the trash cost to cogenerator. Bagasse is provided by the sugar producer in exchange for
process steam and electricity. (See Table 10 for detailed inputs to this analysis.)
Table 14. Production costs for sugar and electricity, with trash price when crude oil costs less than $ 25/bbl.
to cogenerator equal to $ 19.6 per dry t ($ 1.15/GJHHV)[1]
7. Estimated costs to commercialize BIG/GTCC
Sugar Electricity ($/kWh)
($/t) BIG/GTCC CEST
The attractive long-term prospects for BIG/GTCC cogen-
eration to compete commercially at sugar factories or
Capital charges[2] 0 0.0471 0.0450
sugar/ethanol factories must be considered against the fact
O&M 53 0.0066 0.0062
that the technology today is still at a commercial demon-
Sugarcane costs 92 0 0 stration phase, where capital and O&M costs are relatively
Trash 0 0.0069 0.0112 high. How much time and how many BIG/GTCC units
Total 145 0.0606 0.0625 will need building before the costs can be expected to
Carbon credit[3] 0 -0.0044 -0.0044 reach competitive levels? What is likely to be the total
Total with C credit 145 0.0562 0.0581 incremental cost during this period, i.e., the cost above
Notes and beyond commercially competitive costs? We address
1. A 20 %/year capital charge rate is assumed. See Table 10 for additional input assump- these questions next. In our analysis we focus on estimat-
tions. ing capital investment requirements for BIG/GTCC plants
2. Charges for capital replacement are included as part of the O&M costs for sugar pro- designed to generate electricity only, since most
duction. Capital charges for electricity include the cost for investments to reduce steam
consumption in the sugar or sugar and ethanol factories.
BIG/GTCC cost estimates to date have been for stand-
3. Assuming a carbon credit of $ 20/tC saved. Also, electricity generated from sugarcane
alone electricity generating systems.
biomass (assuming zero net CO2 emissions) replaces electricity generated from oil Capital cost for a first-of-a-kind commercial stand-
(saving 0.22 kgC/kWh). alone BIG/GTCC system installed in Brazil today is an
estimated $ 2450/kW for a 30 MW unit.[14] This compares
average production costs in Southeast Brazil. Many pro- with the estimate of $ 1400/kW for a 60 MW unit that
ducers in Brazil can make ethanol at lower cost. The key was the basis for the cost analysis in the previous section.
variable is the cost of the sugarcane. At $ 12/tc, cane ac- At $ 1400/kW, a BIG/GTCC system could produce elec-
counts for over half the cost of the ethanol in Table 15. tricity at a cost less than 5 ¢/kWh,[15] which would make
Cane costs as low as $ 8/tc are achieved in some parts it competitive with other sources of power in rural areas
of SE Brazil and should be achievable elsewhere over in many developing countries, including Cuba. Reaching
time. A cane cost of $ 8/tc would lower the cost of ethanol the level of $ 1400/kW appears feasible considering sev-
by $ 0.05/l compared with the cost in Table 15. Under eral cost reduction opportunities. These include eliminat-
this condition, ethanol would be competitive with gasoline ing specialized engineering services needed for a

Articles
Table 15. Production costs for sugar, ethanol, and electricity, with exponent of 0.65 (derived for natural gas-fired gas turbine
trash price to cogenerator equal to $ 19.6 per dry tonne combined cycle technology[16]) gives an installed capital
($ 1.15/GJHHV)[1] cost of $ 1400/kW for a 60 MWe BIG/GTCC (Table 16).
Sugar Ethanol Electricity ($/kWh) If a global market for BIG/GTCC systems develops, com-
($/t) ($/l) petition in BIG/GTCC systems is likely to drive invest-
BIG/ CEST
GTCC ment costs down still further in the long term. For
example, one study indicates a capital cost for a system
Capital charges[2] 0 0.023 0.0485 0.0473
based on an intercooled steam-injected gas turbine (a tech-
O&M 53 0.094 0.0066 0.0062 nology that is not yet commercially established) of around
Sugarcane costs 92 0.141 0 0 $ 900/kW in 1989 $ [Williams and Larson, 1996], or
Trash 0 0 0.0069 0.0112
about $ 1200/kW in year-2000 $.
How soon might a cost level of $ 1400/kW be
Total 145 0.258 0.0620 0.0648
achieved? All new energy technologies that can be mass-
Carbon credit[3] 0 -0.014 -0.0044 -0.0044 produced and that ultimately become established in com-
Total with C credit 139 0.244 0.0576 0.0604 mercial markets experience reductions in cost with
Notes
cumulative production. For example, Figure 10 shows
1. A 20 %/year capital charge rate is assumed. See Table 10 for additional input assump-
cost reduction curves for several energy technologies at
tions. the early stages of commercial introduction. Several fac-
2. Charges for capital replacement are included as part of the O&M costs for sugar pro- tors typically contribute to the observed cost reductions,
duction. Capital charges for electricity include the cost for investments to reduce steam including technology improvements, technology scale-up,
consumption in the sugar or sugar and ethanol factories.
and “learning by doing”. Each of the curves in Figure 10
3. Assuming a carbon credit of $ 20/tC saved. Also, electricity generated from sugarcane
biomass (assuming zero net CO2 emissions) replaces electricity generated from oil
has associated with it a “progress ratio”, defined as one
(saving 0.22 kgC/kWh). Ethanol from cane (assuming zero net lifecycle CO2 emissions) hundred minus the percentage reduction in cost for each
replaces gasoline (saving 0.72 kgC/l). doubling in cumulative production. For example, for a
technology characterized by an 80 % progress ratio there
first-of-a-kind plant, making technological improvements, would be a 20 % reduction in cost for each doubling in
and reducing contingency costs. We estimate that these cumulative production. The progress ratios for the initial
cost reduction opportunities would reduce the total in- cost reduction period for the technologies in Figure 10
stalled capital cost from $ 2450/kW to $ 1780/kW (Table are all between 75 % and 85 %. Limited experience with
16). A further cost reduction would arise as a result of coal integrated-gasifier combined cycle (IGCC) technolo-
scaling up the plant to a larger size. Applying a scaling gies, which have many similarities with BIG/GTCC
Table 16. Cost reductions from first-of-a-kind BIG/GTCC to commercially-competitive BIG/GTCC
Cost reduction area % cost Installed cost Notes[1]

reduction $/kW
First-of-a-kind, 30 MW 2450 Estimated cost for a first-of-a-kind unit built in Brazil.
BIG/GTCC
Eliminate special 5% 2200 In the Brazilian demonstration project, engineering services (substantially
engineering beyond normal engineering services for a commercial plant) will be
provided by the gas turbine supplier, the gasifier supplier, and the firm
responsible for overall engineering of the plant.
Technology improvements 15 % 1870 Advances (cost reductions) can be expected as a result of “learning by
doing”, especially for plant components that have relatively little history of
commercial use, including the gasifier, gas cooling system, and gas cleanup
system. Also, equipment redundancies can be eliminated. For example, the
Bahia, Brazil, plant design includes two biomass feeders of 100 % capacity
each, six baghouse filters (only four of which are used), and a number of
redundant pumps, heat exchangers and associated piping and valves.
Eliminate non-routine 5% 1780 Contingencies typically account for uncertainties in component cost
contingencies estimates and for unforeseen costs that arise for various reasons
(site-specific requirements, currency exchange rate fluctuations, etc.).
Uncertainty in the cost of components is higher in a first-of-a-kind plant
than in an “Nth” plant, but unforeseen costs may not be.
60 MW module size 21 % 1400 Based on cost quotes from Anonymous [1999] for turnkey natural gas-fired
combined cycles built around an LM2500 gas turbine (31.2 MW output, $
809/kW) and around an LM6000 gas turbine (56.4 MW, $ 658/kW), a
scaling exponent of 0.6511 is derived. For doubling of capacity from 30 to
60 MW, this gives a 21.5 % reduction in unit cost.
Note
1. Where not otherwise indicated, the estimates are based on discussions with TPS engineers and other experts.

Articles
Figure 10. Cost learning curves for several energy technologies [Nakicenovic et al., 1998].
Table 17. Capital cost reduction scenarios for two different progress ratios for BIG/GTCC systems in sugarcane applications. The right-most
column shows the capital investments that would be required to install CEST systems with equivalent capacity to the indicated BIG/GTCC
systems in the 87 % progress ratio scenario
Installed capital cost – BIG/GTCC

Units Installed MW Capital (106 $) to install
82 % progress ratio 87 % progress ratio
built CEST (same MW as 87
Unit Cumulative $/kW[1] 106 $ Incremental $/kW[1] 106 $ Incremental % PR case)[3]
106 $[2] 106 $[2]
1 30 30 2450 73.5 31.4 2450 73.5 31.9 45
2 30 60 2010 60.2 18.2 2130 63.9 22.3 45
3 30 90 1790 53.6 11.6 1960 58.9 17.3 45
4 30 120 1650 49.4 7.3 1850 55.6 14.0 45
5 30 150 1550 46.3 4.3 1770 53.2 11.6 45
6 60 210 1400 84.2 0.0 1660 99.4 16.2 90
7 60 270 - - - 1580 94.5 11.3 90
8 60 330 - - - 1510 90.8 7.6 90
9 60 390 - - - 1460 87.8 4.6 90
10 60 450 - - - 1420 85.3 2.1 90
11 60 510 - - - 1390 83.2 0.0 90
367 73 846 139 765
Notes
1. The first unit in the buy-down program is assumed to cost $ 2450/kW (from Table 16).
2. The incremental capital cost is calculated as kWi×[($/kW)i - ($/kW)N], where kWi is the capacity of the ith plant and ($/kW)i and ($/kW)N are the unit installed costs for plant number
i (=1, 2, 3 …) and for the Nth (commercially mature) plant, respectively. For progress ratios of 82 % and 87 %, N is 6 and 11, respectively.
3. Assuming $ 1500/kW installed cost for CEST units.

Articles
technologies, suggest a progress ratio of 82 % [MacGre- port BIG/GTCC systems larger than 25 or 30 MW each,
gor et al., 1991]. A more general analysis of learning the extensive cane transportation system that exists in
curves of power generating technologies suggests an av- Cuba provides the possibility of aggregating (with low
erage progress ratio of 87 % for smaller-scale technolo- transport costs) cane trash and bagasse from smaller fac-
gies [Neij, 1997]. tories to enable installing of additional larger capacity co-
If one assumes that the first BIG/GTCC built at a su- generation systems. Larger systems are desirable to
garcane processing facility will cost $ 2450/kW, that the capture scale economy benefits.
Nth plant will cost $ 1400/kW, and that the cost reduction In the long term, if Cuba were to install BIG/GTCC
curve against cumulative MW installed will be charac- systems throughout its sugarcane processing industry,
terized by a progress ratio of 82 %, then the $ 1400/kW electricity exports could total 12 to 23 TWh/yr (for har-
cost level could be reached with construction of the sixth vest levels of 40 to 80 Mtc/yr). The potential with CEST
plant[16] (Table 17). The cumulative investment required systems would be 40 % lower than this, but still signifi-
for the six plants would be $ 370 million. Of this total, cant. For comparison, the 1999 level of oil-fired electricity
$ 75 million is the incremental cost, i.e., the investment generation in Cuba was about 12 TWh/yr. If cane-based
required in excess of the projected cost for commercially power were to displace oil-generated utility electricity,
mature technology (Table 17). savings in expenditure on oil (at $ 25/bbl) would be up
If progress in cost reductions is more accurately char- to $ 1.2 billion/year with BIG/GTCC and $ 0.7 bil-
acterized by a progress ratio of 87 %, then a cost of lion/year with CEST (Table 18). The high efficiency of
$ 1400/kW would be reached with construction of the the BIG/GTCC relative to the CEST results in a higher
11th plant. The total and incremental capital investment oil cost savings per t of sugarcane processed: the
requirements for building the 11 plants would be $ 850 BIG/GTCC system would save $ 15/tc, compared with
million and $160 million, respectively (Table 17). Table $ 9/tc for the CEST (Table 18). Carbon dioxide emissions
17 also shows that an investment of $ 765 million would would also be reduced more substantially with
be required to install CEST units with capacity equivalent BIG/GTCC than with CEST. If BIG/GTCC electricity
to the 11 BIG/GTCC units considered in the 87 % pro- were to displace oil-generated power, up to 5 MtC emis-
gress-ratio cost reduction scenario. There would be higher sions might be avoided (Table 18), which represents about
investment risk involved with early BIG/GTCC units than 70 % of the 7.3 MtC released by oil-burning in Cuba in
with CEST units, but the actual investment required to 1997.
commercialize BIG/GTCC technology is only 11 % The long-term potential for producing ethanol as a
higher than the cost of installing an equivalent number of gasoline substitute in Cuba is also substantial. Ethanol
MW of conventional CEST technology. may be an especially important option if future sugarcane
production levels in Cuba return toward the high levels
8. The potential impact of BIG/GTCC in Cuba that existed in the late 1980s, because export of additional
Cuba’s current level of sugarcane production is 35 to 40 sugar into the free market will be increasingly difficult.[18]
Mt/yr (about 3 % of world production), which is down by If Cuban sugarcane production were to rise to the 80
more than half from the level in the late 1980s (Figure 11). Mtc/yr level, and the incremental sucrose production
The per-capita production of sugarcane today, 3.2 tc/per- (above today’s 40 Mtc/yr level) were to be converted into
son/year, is the highest by far among all sugarcane-pro- ethanol, Cuba would produce 3.4 billion l of ethanol per
ducing countries, which suggests that there is a more year, which would be more than sufficient to entirely re-
substantial opportunity in Cuba than elsewhere for sugar- place all petroleum-derived motor vehicle fuels presently
cane-derived energy to reduce dependence on other en- used in Cuba (about 15 million bbl/yr)[19]. The savings in
ergy sources. In Cuba, over 90 % of conventional primary oil expenditures would be about $ 400 million per year
energy consumed is oil – some 8.6 Mt in 1998. Electricity (Table 18).
production and vehicles account for nearly 70 % of the Recognizing the potential for sugarcane-derived energy,
oil consumed, and over 80 % of Cuban oil is imported.[17] the Cuban government has made the development of this
Cuba’s sugarcane processing industry includes 156 fac- energy source a major focus of its energy policy
tories, with cane-crushing capacities ranging from less [Comision Nacional de Energia, 1993]. The government
than 2000 tc/day to over 10,000 tc/day. Many of these has also stated a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas
factories provide small amounts of electricity to the na- emissions. Additionally, Cuba provides an attractive con-
tional grid on an intermittent basis today [Egusquiza and text for early introduction of BIG/GTCC technology be-
Gonzalez, 2000]. The Hector Molina factory (milling ca- cause (1) Cuba’s electricity sector is almost wholly
pacity 7000 tc/day) will be the first one to export a sub- dependent on petroleum, which increases the potential for
stantial amount of electricity (109 kWh/tc) to the grid. In attractive economics for sugarcane electricity due to high
aggregate, Cuba’s sugar factories have the crushing ca- long-run marginal costs of utility power (well in excess
pacity to support about 2.8 GW of CEST cogeneration of 5 ¢/kWh); (2) the close relationship between the sugar
capacity or nearly 5.6 GW of BIG/GTCC capacity (Figure industry, the electricity utility industry and other key gov-
12). For comparison, the total installed electric utility gen- ernment institutions in Cuba could greatly facilitate the
erating capacity in Cuba today is 4.3 GW. Although only introduction of a new technology like the BIG/GTCC; (3)
about half of the factories have sufficient capacity to sup- there is a high level of engineering and technical capacity

Articles
Figure 11. Cuban sugarcane production, sugarcane yield, sugarcane harvested area, and sugar production, 1960-1998. Source: www.fao.org.
Figure 12. Sugarcane-biomass electricity generating capacity that could be supported at individual sugar mills in Cuba. Cumulative capacity is also
shown.

Articles
Table 18. Potential long-term impact on Cuban oil consumption of electricity and ethanol production from sugarcane
Electricity Ethanol
Cane Oil saved Oil saved
harvest,
million tc/yr Output[1] Million Million $/tc[4] Carbon Output[5] 106 bbl per 106 $ per Carbon
TWh/yr bbl/yr[2] $/yr[3] saved 106 l/year yr[6] yr[3] saved 106
106 tC/yr tC/yr
BIG/GTCC
40 11.6 23.8 595 15 2.5
80 23.2 47.6 1190 5.1 3395 16.4 410 1.8
CEST
40 7.10 14.7 370 9 1.5
80 14.4 29.4 735 3.1 3395 16.4 410 1.8

Notes
1. Table 5 gives values assumed here for kWh output per tonne of cane harvested.
2. Electricity is assumed to displace utility-generated electricity, which today consumes 279 t of oil/GWh (2045 bbl/GWh).
3. Oil at $ 25/bbl.
4. Saved oil expenditures per tonne of sugarcane harvested. Oil at $ 25/bbl.
5. Half of sugarcane sucrose is assumed to be converted to ethanol at a rate of 85 l/t of cane.
6. This assumes that ethanol would be used as a neat fuel, in which case one l ethanol replaces 0.75 l of petroleum.
in Cuba that could be trained to support such new tech- (as is commonly found at sugar mills), the HHV is 9.4 GJ/t. The lower heating value
(LHV) for 50 % moisture content bagasse is 7.5 GJ/t. The HHV of sugarcane trash (as
nology; and (4) Cuba’s unique sugarcane harvesting sys- measured in SE Brazil) is 17.0 GJ/dry t. For trash with 15 % moisture content (as
tem already involves some collection of sugarcane trash. delivered in SE Brazil), the HHV is 14.5 GJ/t. The LHV for trash with 15 % moisture
content is 13.0 GJ/t.
9. Conclusions 2. One key issue with the use of trash as a boiler or gasifier fuel is its relatively high
alkali content compared with bagasse. Combustion or gasification of high-alkali fuels
The biomass integrated-gasifier/gas turbine combined cy- can cause deposition problems in boilers, heat exchangers, and other downstream
cle technology promises high efficiencies and lower elec- equipment. Bagasse has much lower ash and alkali fractions than trash [CTC, 1999].
tricity costs than conventional biomass-fired condensing Thus, mixing bagasse with trash should enable the average alkali content of the fuel
to be maintained at adequately low levels.
steam turbine technology. Efforts are going on worldwide
3. Steam pressures in this paper are given as absolute pressures.
to commercialize BIG/GTCC systems. Construction of the
4. A more efficient plant design might utilize waste heat to dry the biomass, but a directly-
first revenue-earning unit was completed in 2000 (in the fired dryer is simpler to integrate into the overall plant and would be less capital-inten-
UK) and that unit is undergoing start-up testing. The costs sive if it enables higher-temperature drying.
for such early commercial units will be high, but our 5. Gas turbines are sold in a limited set of discrete sizes, and thus the choice of gas
analysis suggests that competitive costs will be achieved turbine for a BIG/GTCC system determines the amount of fuel (trash in this case) that
must be supplied to the system. This is in contrast to boiler/steam turbine systems,
by the time six to eleven units have been built. The su- which can typically be designed to match a specified quantity of fuel supply.
garcane processing industry provides an attractive context 6. For the system shown in Table 5, the HRSG waste heat is vented to the atmosphere
for early commercial applications. Because of its high per- and there is no heat recovery during cooling of the gasifier product gas.
capita production of sugarcane and its high dependence 7. The average moisture content of the biomass input to the system described in Table
on imported oil today, Cuba is an especially attractive 5 is 40 %. The moisture content of the fuel in the calculations of Consonni and Larson
was 50 %. If a fuel moisture content of 40 % were used instead, the electrical efficiency
country for early introduction of BIG/GTCC systems. calculated by Consonni and Larson would be higher than 34 %.
Eric Larson and Robert Williams can be contacted at: 8. For input fuel moisture content of 50 %. The gas turbine used in this design is one
Ph: 609-258-5445; Fax: 609-258-3661 with an intercooled compressor. See Consonni and Larson [1996].
E-mail: elarson@princeton.edu 9. In this paper, the subscript on kg refers to the moisture content of the biomass (weight
Regis Leal can be contacted at: basis). Thus kg0 is zero moisture content.
Ph: 55-19-429-8217; Fax: 55-19-429-8108 10. All costs in the this paper are given in year-2000 US$.
E-mail: regis@copersucar.com.br 11. See Table 3.1 and 3.2 in Alexander [1985].
12. See http://www.prototypecarbonfund.org.
Acknowledgements
13. As a blend-stock, one l of ethanol replaces one l of gasoline [Macedo, 2000].
This paper is based on a presentation given by one of the authors (Larson) at the Interna-
tional Workshop on Energy from Sugarcane, hosted by the Cuban Sugar Ministry in Havana, 14. As of several years ago, one published estimate of the capital cost for the 32 MWe
7-9 November 2000. The analysis in the paper was financed by the Norwegian Ministry of BIG/GTCC commercial demonstration project in Bahia, Brazil (see Table 2) was $
Foreign Affairs. For helpful contributions to the paper, the authors thank Suleiman Jose 2600/kW [CHESF et al., 1998]. Since that estimate was made, considerable advances
Hassuani, Helcio Martins Lamonica, Francisco A.B. Linero, Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, and in understanding of costs have occurred, in part as a result of the construction of the
Jose Perez Rodrigues Filho at the Copersucar Technology Center; Andrew Ellis, Olav first commercial BIG/GTCC plant in the UK (see Table 2). On the basis of discussions
Kjorven, and Haakon Vennemo at ECON, Oslo, Norway; and Felix J. Perez Egusquiza and with knowledgeable experts, we estimate that the cost for a BIG/GTCC today would be
Paulino Lopez Guzman at the Ministry of Sugar, Havana, Cuba. $ 2450/kW for a 30-MW system.
Notes 15. With an installed capital cost of $ 1400/kW, a capital charge rate of 15 %/yr, an 85 %
1. In this paper, the energy content of a fuel is expressed on a higher heating value (HHV) capacity factor, and O&M costs of $ 0.006/kWh, the capital and O&M costs would be
basis. The HHV of bagasse is 18.8 GJ/dry t. For bagasse with 50 % moisture content $ 0.034/kWh. Assuming an efficiency of 34 % for a commercially mature system (see

Articles
Section 4.4), the fuel cost would be $ 0.016/kWh for a biomass price of $ 1.5/GJ, which Larson, E.D., Williams, R.H., Ogden, J.M., and Hylton, M.G., 1990. “Biomass gas turbine
might be representative of the average price of sugarcane biomass (trash plus bagasse) cogeneration for the cane sugar industry”, International Sugar Journal, March/April.
sold to an independent power generator.
Leal, M.R.L.V., 1995. “Brazilian mill burns cane trash”, International Cane Energy News,
16. This assumes the first five units are 30 MWe plants, and subsequent ones are 60 MWe Winrock International, Arlington, Virginia, USA, August.
plants.
Lopez, P., 1987. “Field experience in the collection and transport of cane trash (barbojo) at
17. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/cuba.html central Romana”, in Cane Energy Utilization Symposium – a Report from the 2nd Pacific
18. Only about one-quarter of global sugar production is traded on the free market, and Basin Biofuels Workshop, Volume II: Presented Papers, Report No. 88-04, Office of Energy,
Cuban sugar already accounts for about 10 % of all sugar traded in this market. Bureau of Science and Technology, US Agency for International Development, Washington,
19. At such high levels of ethanol production, it is likely that ethanol would be used as a DC, April.
neat fuel, in which case 1.3 l of ethanol would be needed to give the same vehicle Macedo, I.C., 2000. “Commercial perspectives of bioalcohol in Brazil”, presented at the 1st
distance travelled as one l of gasoline [Macedo, 2000]. World Biomass Energy Conference, Seville, Spain, June.
Macedo, I.C., Leal, M.R.L.V., and Hassuani, S.J., 2001. “Sugar cane residues for power
References generation in the sugar/ethanol mills in Brazil”, Energy for Sustainable Development, V(1)
(this issue).
Alexander, A.G., 1985. The Energy Cane Alternative, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
MacGregor, P.R., Maslak, C.E., and Stoll, H.G., 1991. “The market outlook for integrated
Allison, W.F., 1987. “Alternative uses of sugarcane for Puerto Rico”, in Cane Energy Utili- gasification combined cycle technology”, Proceedings of the 4th International Exhibition and
zation Symposium – a Report from the 2nd Pacific Basin Biofuels Workshop, Volume II: Conference for the Power Generation Industries, published by Power-Gen, Houston, Texas.
Presented Papers, Report No. 88-04, Office of Energy, Bureau of Science and Technology,
US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, April. Ministerio de la Industria Azucarera (Ministry of Sugar) (MINAZ), 1999. CUB.G41/45 Project,
C.A.I. Hector Molina Feasibility Study, Final Report, Ministry of Sugar, Havana, March.
Anonymous, 1999. 1999-2000 Gas Turbine World Handbook, Volume 20.
J.R. Moreira, 2000. “Sugarcane for energy – recent results and progress in Brazil”, Energy
Anonymous, 2000. “Alternative biomass fuel for sugar mills: trials with cane trash”, Cane for Sustainable Development, IV(3), pp. 43-54.
Cogen India: A Quarterly Newsletter of the GEP Project, Winrock International India, New
Delhi, January. Nakicenovic, N., Grubler, A., and McDonald, A., (eds.), 1998: Global Energy Perspectives,
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the World Energy Council, Cam-
Carpentieri, E., and Macedo, N., 2000. “The introduction of BIG-GT technology – possible bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
future uses in Northeast Brazil”, Energy for Sustainable Development, IV(3), October.
Neij, L., 1997. “Use of experience curves to analyse the prospect for diffusion and adoption
CHESF, CIENTEC, CVRD, Eletrobras, and Shell, Brazilian Wood BIG-GT Demonstration of renewable energy technology”, Energy Policy, 23(13), pp. 1099-1107, November.
Integrated Wood Gasification System Project – WBP: Final Report on Phase II, Brazil Min-
istry of Science and Technology and United Nations Development Program, Brasilia, 1998. Neilson, C.E., Shafer, D.G., and Carpentieri, E., 1999. “LM2500 gas turbine fuel nozzle
design and combustion test evaluation and emission results with simulated gasified wood
Cock, J., Briceno, C.O., and Torres, J., 2000. “Energy from cane trash in Colombia”, Inter- product fuels”, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, pp. 600-606,
national Cane Energy News, Winrock International, Arlington, Virginia, USA, April. October.
Comision Nacional de Energia, 1993. Programa de Desarrollo de las Fuentes Nacionales Ogden, J.M., Hochgreb, S., and Hylton, M., 1990. “Steam economy and cogeneration in
de Energia, Havana, June. cane sugar factories”, International Sugar Journal, 92(1099), pp. 131-143.
Consonni, S., and Larson, E.D., 1996. “Biomass-gasifier/aeroderivative gas turbine combined Ogden, J.M., Williams, R.H., and Fulmer, M.E., 1991. “Cogeneration applications of biomass
cycles: Part B – Performance calculations and economic assessment”, Journal of Engineer- gasifier/gas turbine technologies in the cane sugar and alcohol industries”, Energy and the
ing for Gas Turbines and Power, 118, pp. 516-525, July. Environment in the 21st Century, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 311-346.
Craig K.R., and Mann, M.K., 1996. Cost and Performance Analysis of Biomass-Based In- Phillips, A., 1987. “Harvest and preparation technology for biofuels”, in Cane Energy Utili-
tegrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (BIGCC) Power Systems, NREL/TP-430-21657, Na- zation Symposium – a Report from the 2nd Pacific Basin Biofuels Workshop, Volume II:
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, October. Presented Papers, Report No. 88-04, Office of Energy, Bureau of Science and Technology,
Copersucar Technology Center (CTC), 1998. Steam Economy in Sugar Mills, Project US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, April.
BRA/96/G31 Newsletter of the Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar, Piracicaba, Brazil, June. Schembri, M., and Carson, C.A., 1997. “The challenge of harvesting green cane”, Interna-
Copersucar Technology Center (CTC), 1999. Biomass Power Generation, Sugarcane Ba- tional Cane Energy News, Winrock International, Arlington, Virginia, USA, July.
gasse and Trash, Project BRA/96/G31 Newsletter No. 5, Copersucar Technology Center, Varua, V.F., 1987. “Trash for fuel: a Luisita project”, in Cane Energy Utilization Symposium
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, January. – a Report from the 2nd Pacific Basin Biofuels Workshop, Volume II: Presented Papers,
Elliott, P., and Booth, R., Brazilian Biomass Power Demonstration Project”, Special Project Report No. 88-04, Office of Energy, Bureau of Science and Technology, US Agency for
Brief, Shell International Petroleum Company, Shell Centre, London, UK, 1993. International Development, Washington, DC, April.
Egusquiza, F.J. Perez, 1994. Balanco Nacional de Paja de Cana, Ministry of Sugar, Havana, Waldheim, L., and Carpentieri, E., 2001. “Update on the progress of the Brazilian wood
Cuba, 20 June. BIG-GT demonstration project”, Paper No. 98-GT-472, ASME Journal of Engineering for
Egusquiza, F.J. Perez, and Gonzalez, A. Rubio, 2000. “Realities about the use of the cane Gas Turbines and Power (forthcoming).
straw (C.A.W.) as combustible in the Cuban sugar cane industry in the last twenty years”, Weyerhaeuser Company, Stone & Webster Engineering, Amoco, and Carolina Power &
presented at the 1st World Conference on Biomass Energy, Seville, Spain, June. Light, 1995. New Bern Biomass to Energy Project: Phase I Feasibility Study, report to the
Faaij, A., Meuleman, B., and van Ree, R., 1998. Long Term Perspectives of Biomass Inte- National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, Colorado) and Electric Power Research
grated Gasification with Combined Cycle Technology: Costs and Efficiency and a Compari- Institute (Palo Alto, California), June.
son with Combustion, Report 9840, Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, Williams, R.H., and Larson, E.D., “Biomass gasifier gas turbine power generating technol-
December. ogy”, Biomass and Bioenergy, 10(2-3), pp. 149-166, 1996.
Guzman, P.L., and Valdes, A., 2000. “Heat and power cogeneration at a Cuban sugar mill Winrock International, 1991. Baling Sugarcane Tops and Leaves: the Thai Experience, Re-
based on bagasse and trash as fuel: the ‘Hector Molina’ Project”, Energy for Sustainable port No. 91-15, Office of Energy, Bureau of Science and Technology, US Agency for Inter-
Development, IV(3), October. national Development, Washington, DC, August.

A Review of Biomass IGCC Technology - Application To Sugarcane Industries

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Review of Biomass IGCC Technology - Application To Sugarcane Industries

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Reproduced with permission from Energy for Sustainable Development

A review of biomass integrated-gasifier/gas

M. Regis L.V. Leal

Biomass integrated-gasifier/gas turbine combined cycle (BIG/GTCC) systems will be capable of

1. Introduction 250 GWfuel), equivalent to 17 % of today’s total coal con-

54 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

sector impacts of the widespread application of

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 55

Gasifier design Advantages Disadvantages

Table 2. BIG/GTCC-related commercial and demonstration projects worldwide

56 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 57

Sugar-only Sugar factory with annexed ethanol

Typical Steam Steam Typical Steam Steam

Process electricity consumption, kWh/tc 20 28 29 20 28 29

Total capital investment (million US$) - 1.60 2.20 - 3.33 4.86

58 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 59

60 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

CEST (82 bar steam) “Pure” BIG/GTCC

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 61

62 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 63

CEST (82 bar steam) “Pure” BIG/GTCC

64 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 65

Machine harvested fields Manually harvested fields

66 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Table 10. Inputs to cost analysis

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 67

Job description Monthly CEST BIG/GTCC

Manager 5320 1 63840 1 63840

BIG/GT operators 532 - - 14 89376

Boiler operators 532 9 57456 - -

Operator (front-end loader) 532 6 38304 6 38304

Operator (bale shredder) 532 3 19152 3 19152

Conveyor operator 532 3 19152 3 19152

Auxiliaries and relief 532 5 31920 6 38304

68 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 69

70 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Table 16. Cost reductions from first-of-a-kind BIG/GTCC to commercially-competitive BIG/GTCC

Cost reduction area % cost Installed cost Notes[1]

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 71

Installed capital cost – BIG/GTCC

72 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 73

74 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

40 11.6 23.8 595 15 2.5

80 23.2 47.6 1190 5.1 3395 16.4 410 1.8

40 7.10 14.7 370 9 1.5

80 14.4 29.4 735 3.1 3395 16.4 410 1.8

Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001 75

76 Energy for Sustainable Development z Volume V No. 1 z March 2001

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen