S.C. Bhattacharya

1
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
2
Biomass Study Team
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)
3
Biomass Study Team
India Prof. N.H. Ravindranath IISc,
Bangalore Dr. H.P. Narang (Emission
Study) NPL, Delhi Malaysia Dr. Hoi Why
Kong Forest Research Institute
Malaysia Philippines Dr. Jessie C.
Elauria University of the Philippines Los
Baños (UPLB)
4
Biomass Study Team
Sri Lanka Dr. A.G.T. Sugathapala University of
Moratuwa Thailand Dr.Boonrod Sajjakulnukit Dep
artment of Energy Development and Promotion
(DEDP) Dr.Monthip Tabucanon (Emission Study)
Department of Environmental Quality
Promotion Vietnam Prof. Pham Ngoc Ho
(Emission Study) University of Science,
Hanoi
5
Major Research Activities

• Assessment of sustainable biomass resource
  potential,
• Assessment of cost of CO2 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.

6
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.
7
Biomass resource potential assessment (contd.)
Table 1 Energy potential of plantation biomass
Country Energy potential of plantation biomass (PJ) Projected total energy consumption in 2010 (PJ) Percentage of projected energy consumption in 2010 Cost of biomass production (US/tonne)
China 2700 - 3150 52,740 5 - 6 0.86 -12.9
India 930 - 4650 19,200 5 - 24 5.6 - 7.8
Malaysia 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
Thailand 174 - 1600 5,132 3 - 31 6 - 13.3
8
Biomass resource potential assessment (contd.)

• The key barriers to biomass production for energy
  include
• Technical barriers high investment costs of
  dedicated plantations, and low biomass
  productivity.
• 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.

9
Biomass resource potential assessment (contd.)
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.
10
Biomass resource potential assessment (contd.)
Table 2 Total non-plantation bio-energy
potential (PJ)
Types of Biomass Sri Lanka Sri Lanka India India China China Philippines Philippines Malaysia Malaysia Thailand Thailand
Types of Biomass 1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010 1997 2010 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
Biomass from conservation 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 15.1 102 102 - - - - 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
Total 111 133 5142 8597 6479 9479 561 779 420 562 475 880
11
Cost of CO2 abatement through selected BETS
The estimated cost of CO2 abatement through
substitution of fossil fuel and traditional
biomass systems by selected modern/improved
biomass energy systems ranges from negative to
moderate positive values.
12
Table 3 GHG abatement cost
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted China India Phil. Thailand
Biomass IGCC power plant Coal-fired power plant 2 14.6
Electricity from bagasse based cogeneration Coal IGCC Power Plant -7.8
Electricity from bagasse based cogeneration Coal-fired power plant 49
Electricity from bagasse based cogeneration Grid electricity -20.5
Electricity from bagasse-coal based cogeneration Electricity from gas cogeneration -0.4
Electricity from rice husk based cogeneration Diesel-Gen-set -71.1
Biogas fired power plant Coal-fired power plant 62
Biogas Engine System Diesel generator -190 -88.4 to 48.3
Biogas Engine System Grid electricity 13.9
13
Table 3 GHG abatement cost (contd.)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted India Phil. Sri Lanka Thai-land
Land fill gas-engine system Diesel-Gen-set -6.2
Biomass gasifier-engined system (dual fuel mode) Diesel generator -149 -62.5 to 32
Biomass gasifier-engined system (dual fuel mode) Grid electricity 45.3
Biomass gasifier-engine 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 9.8
Wood/Rice husk fired power plant Coal fired power plant 4.8 6.2 to16.9
Wood/Rice husk fired power plant Oil fired combine cycle power plant -28.1 -59
Wood/Rice husk fired power plant Furnace oil fired power plant -7.1
Wood/Rice husk fired power plant Gas turbine power plant -79.1
14
Table 3 GHG abatement cost (contd.)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted India Phil. Thailand
Community biogas- fired stove Traditional fuel- wood stove 19.1
Community biogas- fired stove Kerosene stove 2.5 83
Charcoal stove LPG stove 28.2 -3.7
Charcoal stove Kerosene stove 24.5
Improved cookstoves Traditional fuel wood stove -10.8 -34.2
15
Table 3 GHG abatement cost (contd.)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted China Phil. Sri Lanka Thai-land
Producer gas fired stove Coal stove 50
Producer gas fired stove LPG Stove -13
Biogas-fired stove Coal stove 74
Biogas-fired stove LPG stove 9 118
Biogas-fired stove Traditional Stove -12.7
Biogas-fired stove Improved Stove 13.4
Biogas-fired stove Electric Stove -20.8
16
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne) GHG abatement cost (US/tonne)
Modern/improved biomass energy systems Fossil fuel or traditional biomass system substituted China Sri Lanka Thailand
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 15.4
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
17
Biomass/RE Policy analysis Policy Highlights
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.
18
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 (MoST).
India a separate Ministry (MNES) for overall
planning and programme formulation. Malaysia a
number of organizations are responsible for
formulating policies for RE development.
19
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.
20
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
grids average price level.
21
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 RD 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.
22
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 RD
efforts. Other barriers include lack of
standardisation, lack of local expertise/manufactu
rers/agents, lack maintenance service, and
technology-specific problems.
23
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.
24
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.  
25
Table 5Overall ranking of Biomass Energy
Technologies
Overall ranking Biomass Energy Technologies Biomass Energy Technologies Biomass Energy Technologies Biomass Energy Technologies Biomass Energy Technologies
Overall ranking 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 ICS BGPG IK/S BMSPP
5 GBPG ICS ICS COGEN
6 GBPH GBPH B-COGEN BGPH/PG
7 BMSPP B-COGEN GBPH
8 ICSPH BGC

• Legend
• B-COGENBagasse-based cogeneration
• BGC Biogas for cooking
• BGP Biogas plants
• BGPG Biogas for power generation
• BIGCC Biomass integrated gasification combined
  cycle

BMG Biomass gasifiers BMSPP Biomass fired
steam power plant COGEN Cogeneration GBPH
Gasification based process heat ICS Improved
cookstoves ICSPH Improved stoves for process
heat IK/S Improved kilns/stoves
26
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.

27
Table 4 Overall ranking of barriers to the
spread of improved cookstoves
Overall ranking Barriers Barriers Barriers Barriers Barriers
Overall ranking China India Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand
1 LoPA HIC HIC LoLE HIC
2 LoMCFM DGL LoLAHPD LoPAS LoMCFM
3 HIC LoPA LoPA LoCAGA SFF
4 LoLAHPD LoLE LoLE LoLaHPD LoPA
5 LoLE LoLAHPD LoCAGA LoMCFM LOCAGA
6 SFF LoAI LoMCFM HIC LoLE
7 LoCAGA SFF SFF LoLAHPD

• Legend
• DGL Difficulty in getting loans
• HIC High Intial Cost
• LoAI Lack of awareness/information on
  improved stoves,incentives, subsidies available
• LoCAGA Lack of coordination among government
  agencies
• LoLAHPDLack of local availability of high
  performance devices
• LoLE Lack of local expertise/know-how, skills
• LoMCFM Lack of micro-credit financing
  mechanism
• LoPA Lack of Performance assurance/standards
• SFF Subsidy to fossil fuels/electricity

28
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 micro-credit
financing mechanisms.
29
Thank you