Biomass Energy in Asia A Study of Selected

Biomass Energy in Asia: A Study of Selected Technologies and Policy Options S. C. Bhattacharya Ram M. Shrestha H. L. Pham Asian Regional Research Programme in Energy, Environment and Climate (ARRPEEC) Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

Biomass Study Team Institution, Project Team & Leader* AIT Prof. S. C. Bhattacharya*, Prof. Ram M. Shrestha, Dr. N. T. Kim Oanh (Emission study), Dr. H. L. Pham, P. Abdul Salam, Dionel Albina China Prof. Li Junfeng Center for Renewable Energy Development (CRED) Prof. Y. H. Zhuang (Emission study) Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences (RCEES)

Biomass Study Team Institution & Project Team India Malaysia Prof. N. H. Ravindranath IISc, Bangalore Dr. H. P. Narang (Emission Study) NPL, Delhi Dr. Hoi Why Kong Forest Research Institute Malaysia Philippines Dr. Jessie C. Elauria University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)

Biomass Study Team Institution & Project Team Sri Lanka Dr. A. G. T. Sugathapala Thailand Vietnam University of Moratuwa Dr. Boonrod Sajjakulnukit Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP) Dr. Monthip Tabucanon (Emission Study) Department of Environmental Quality Promotion Prof. Pham Ngoc Ho (Emission Study) University of Science, Hanoi

Major Research Activities • Assessment of sustainable biomass resource potential, • Assessment of cost of CO 2 abatement through substitution of fossil fuel and traditional biomass systems by selected modern/improved biomass energy systems, • Policy analysis to identify barriers to deployment of Biomass Energy Technologies (BETs), • Ranking of modern BETs, and • Ranking of barriers to the deployment of modern BETs.

Biomass resource potential assessment Plantation biomass A study was conducted to assess: i) land availability for biomass plantation, and ii) potential of further energy supply from biomass plantation in such land. The energy potential of plantation biomass is 5 -6%, 5 -24%, 0. 2 -0. 8%, 2 -11%, 7 -35%, and 3 -31% of the projected total energy consumption in 2010 in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively. Biomass production is found profitable in all countries, even at low to moderate productivity.

Biomass resource potential assessment (cont’d. ) Table 1: Energy potential of plantation biomass (PJ) Projected total energy consumptio n in 2010 (PJ) Percentage of projected energy consumption in 2010 Cost of biomass production (US$/tonne) 2700 - 3150 52, 740 5 -6 0. 86 -12. 9 930 - 4650 19, 200 5 - 24 5. 6 - 7. 8 6 - 26 3, 172 0. 2 -0. 8 20. 3 - 23 Philippines 56 - 306 2, 858 2 - 11 5. 1 - 5. 4 Sri Lanka 30 - 150 425 7 - 35 8. 2 - 12 174 - 1600 5, 132 3 - 31 6 - 13. 3 Country China India Malaysia Thailand

Biomass resource potential assessment (cont’d. ) The key barriers to biomass production for energy include: • Technical barriers: high investment costs plantations, and low biomass productivity. of dedicated • Financial barriers: lack of investment in the forestry sector, difficulty in accessing finance, and lack of incentives. • Institutional barriers: lack of co-ordination among different government agencies, lack of mechanism for their interaction with private sector, lack of a designated agency for promoting biomass energy/plantation and lack of access to expertise on plantation in degraded land. • Policy barriers: unclear, unsupportive and biased government policy and absence of national strategy or priority for promoting biomass energy use.

Biomass resource potential assessment (cont’d. ) Non-plantation biomass Resources assessed include: agricultural residues; animal wastes; municipal solid waste (MSW) and landfill gas; industrial waste water; and black liquor, biomass fuels that can be saved through efficiency improvement and their substitution by other fuels. The energy potential of non-plantation biomass is estimated to be about 18%, 44%, 18%, 27%, 31%, 17% of the projected total energy consumption in 2010 in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively.

Biomass resource potential assessment (cont’d. ) Table 2: Total non-plantation bio-energy potential (PJ) Types of Biomass Sri Lanka India China Philippines Malaysia Thailand 1997 2010 1997 2010 Agricultural residues 49. 6 55. 6 4714 6564 5068 5246 164 178 343 454 425 562 Animal wastes 6. 3 6. 5 336 374 1102 2095 2. 9 4. 9 - - 13 13 51. 3 50. 2 - 525 - 744 249 296 - - - 156 MSW 3. 7 4. 8 86 219 50 91 36. 4 46. 8 10 17. 8 19 21. 3 Waste water 0. 2 0. 4 6. 5 15. 1 102 - - 7. 8 8 Black liquor - 0. 2 - - 157 287 0. 4 0. 02 - - 8. 8 9 Palm oil - - - - 67 90. 5 1. 3 1 Biomass from substitution - 15. 5 - 900 - 914 109 254 - - - 109 111 133 5142 8597 6479 9479 561 779 420 562 475 880 Biomass from conservation Total

Cost of CO 2 abatement through selected BETS The estimated cost of CO 2 abatement through substitution of fossil fuel and traditional biomass systems by selected modern/improved biomass energy systems ranges from negative to moderate positive values.

Table 3: GHG abatement cost Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted Biomass IGCC power plant Coal-fired power plant Electricity from bagasse based cogeneration Coal IGCC Power Plant Coal-fired power plant GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne) China India Phil. 2 Thailand 14. 6 -7. 8 49 Grid electricity -20. 5 Electricity from bagasse-coal based cogeneration Electricity from gas cogeneration Electricity from rice husk based cogeneration Diesel-Gen-set Biogas fired power plant Coal-fired power plant Biogas Engine System Diesel generator -190 Grid electricity 13. 9 -0. 4 -71. 1 62 -88. 4 to – 48. 3

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d. ) Modern/improv Fossil fuel or traditional ed biomass system energy systems substituted GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne) India Land fill gasengine system Diesel-Gen-set Biomass gasifierengined system (dual fuel mode) Diesel generator -149 Grid electricity 45. 3 Biomass gasifierengine system (gas mode) Grid electricity 14. 5 Biomass fired power plant Grid electricity -23. 5 Wood/Rice husk fired power plant Furnace oil fired power plant Phil. Sri Lanka Thailand -6. 2 -62. 5 to 32 9. 8 Coal fired power plant 4. 8 6. 2 to 16. 9 Oil fired combine cycle power plant -28. 1 -59 Furnace oil fired power plant -7. 1 Gas turbine power plant -79. 1

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d. ) Modern/impro ved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne) traditional biomass India Phil. Thailand system substituted Community biogas- fired stove Traditional fuelwood stove 19. 1 Kerosene stove 2. 5 Charcoal stove LPG stove 28. 2 Kerosene stove 24. 5 Improved cookstoves Traditional fuel wood stove -10. 8 83 -34. 2 -3. 7

Table 3: GHG abatement cost (cont’d. ) Modern/impro ved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US$/tonne) Producer gas fired stove Coal stove 50 LPG Stove -13 Biogas-fired stove Coal stove 74 LPG stove 9 China Phil. Sri Lanka 118 Traditional Stove -12. 7 Improved Stove 13. 4 Electric Stove Thailand -20. 8

Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or GHG abatement cost traditional biomass (US$/tonne) system substituted China Sri Thailand Lanka Producer gas fired boiler Coal fired boiler 15 Biogas fired boiler Coal fired boiler 94 Multi-fuel (50% coal, 25 % wood, 25 % rice husk) boiler Coal fired boiler Sawdust fired boiler Furnace oil fired boiler -124 Fuel wood fired furnace Furnace oil fired boiler -23. 2 Biomass fuelled dryer LPG fueled dryer -34 Producer gas fired kiln LPG fired kiln 82 15. 4

Policy Objectives Some Asian countries have come up with clear mission/policy objectives statement on renewable energy (RE). China: Raising efficiency and reducing cost in order to boost the share of RE in national energy supply. India: Meeting minimum rural energy needs, provision of decentralised energy needs and grid quality power generation and supply. In all study countries RE is now recognised as important for providing energy services, particularly in remote and rural areas.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Policy Highlights Institutional Structure China: several government entities are involved in renewable energy planning and development; these include the State Development and Planning Commission (SDPC), the State Economic and Trade Commission (SETC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (Mo. ST). India: a separate Ministry (MNES) for overall planning and programme formulation. Malaysia: a number of organizations are responsible formulating policies for RE development.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Policy Highlights Philippines: Department of Energy (DOE) formulates energy policies. The Non-Conventional Energy Division of DOE is responsible for RE development in collaboration with a number of other national energy related agencies. Thailand: National Energy Policy Office formulates policy on energy, including renewable energy while the Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP) implements the policies. Sri Lanka: There is no specific government body responsible for promoting renewable energy in Sri Lanka. Ministry of Irrigation, Power and Energy (MIPE) and Ministry of Forest and Environment (MFE) mainly deal with Biomass.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Policy Highlights Fiscal and Financial Incentives Investment subsidy is provided to all major renewable energy technologies and is also available to a lesser extent in China and Thailand. In India, 100% depreciation in the first year is allowed for certain equipment. Other fiscal incentives available in India include exemption/reduction in excise duty, and customs duty concessions on imports. Tax incentives for biomass energy projects are also available in Malaysia, China and Thailand. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) Provisions for PPAs are quite well established in India, China and Thailand. Wind farms in China have a right to sell electricity to the grid at a price giving them a reasonable profit even if the price is higher than the grid’s average price level.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Policy Highlights Research and Development Improved cookstove programs have been undertaken in practically all countries. Relatively less has been done regarding traditional biomass energy systems in rural industries. In Asia, only India and China have achieved some success in R&D efforts on modern biomass energy systems. Not much is being done in areas of high technology in biomass energy, e. g. , flash pyrolysis of biomass, production of ethanol from lingo-cellulosic materials, and integrated gasification combined cycle.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Barriers to BETs Modern biomass energy technologies (BETs) face a number of barriers: technical, institutional, informational, and financial. Technical Barriers Some of the modern BETs need further R&D efforts. Other barriers include: lack of standardisation, lack of local expertise/manufacturers/agents, lack maintenance service, and technology-specific problems.

Biomass/RE Policy analysis : Barriers to BETs Institutional Barriers These include lack of co-ordination among concerned government agencies, poor state and capability of national research institutes, and lack of micro-credit financing mechanisms. Information Barriers Main barriers are lack of enough information on national biomass resource base, and lack of information on currently commercial/mature BETs. Financial Barriers Main barriers are lack of investment in the field of bioenergy, and perceived risks of bioenergy systems.

Ranking of Biomass Energy Technologies The ranking of BETs helps policy makers to focus better on a few most important technologies. Developing a suitable strategy for promoting bioenergy would involve removal of the most important barriers to these technologies. In this study several BETs were ranked using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on the following criteria: · Potential to make socio-economic impact, · Potential to meet overall national energy needs, and · Potential to attract investment (domestic and external) Improved and modern biomass-based cooking and electricity generation technologies have been found to be the most important BETs.

Table 5: Overall ranking of Biomass Energy Technologies Overall ranking Biomass Energy Technologies China India Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand 1 ICS BGP BMSPP BIGCC ICS 2 BGC BMG BIGCC BMSPP BGC 3 COGEN B-COGEN BGC BGPG GBPH 4 BGPG IK/S BMSPP 5 GBPG ICS COGEN 6 GBPH B-COGEN BGPH/PG 7 BMSPP B-COGEN GBPH 8 ICSPH ICS Legend: B-COGEN: Bagasse-based cogeneration; BGC: Biogas for cooking; BGP: Biogas plants; BGPG: Biogas for power generation; BIGCC: Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle; BGC BMG: BMSPP: COGEN: GBPH: ICSPH: Biomass gasifiers; Biomass fired steam power plant; Cogeneration; Gasification based process heat; Improved cookstoves; Improved stoves for process heat; IK/S: Improved kilns/stoves

Ranking of barriers to biomass energy technologies The barriers to the spread of a number of BETs were ranked in the study countries using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on the following criteria: • ‘impact’ the removal of the barrier would have on the spread of the technology, and • ‘level of effort’ needed to overcome the barrier. [Only the results on the barriers to improved cookstoves (common to all country studies) are presented here. ] High initial cost, lack of performance assurance/standards, and lack of micro-credit financing mechanisms are the most important barriers to improved cookstove commercialisation.

Table 4: Overall ranking of barriers to the spread of improved cookstoves Overall ranking Barriers China India Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand 1 Lo. PA HIC Lo. LE HIC 2 Lo. MCFM DGL Lo. LAHPD Lo. PAS Lo. MCFM 3 HIC Lo. PA Lo. CAGA SFF 4 Lo. LAHPD Lo. LE Lo. La. HPD Lo. PA 5 Lo. LE Lo. LAHPD Lo. CAGA Lo. MCFM LOCAGA 6 SFF Lo. A&I Lo. MCFM HIC Lo. LE 7 Lo. CAGA SFF Lo. LAHPD Legend: DGL: Difficulty in getting loans; HIC: High Intial Cost; Lo. A&I : Lack of awareness/information on improved stoves, incentives, subsidies available Lo. CAGA: Lack of coordination among government agencies; Lo. LAHPD: Lack of local availability of high performance devices; Lo. LE: Lack of local expertise/know-how, skills; Lo. MCFM: Lack of micro-credit financing mechanism; Lo. PA: Lack of Performance assurance/standards; SFF: Subsidy to fossil fuels/electricity;

Conclusions New plantations and non-plantation sources can potentially significantly raise energy supplies from biomass. RE sources are now recognised as important in meeting growing energy demands, particularly in remote and rural areas. Improved and modern biomass-based cooking and electricity generation technologies are the most important BETs in the study countries. Modern BETs face a variety of barriers; the most important barriers in the case of improved cookstove are high initial cost, lack of performance assurance/standards, and lack of microcredit financing mechanisms.

Thank you