Authors : M. Ozonoh

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mrxzzh86

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3cm4hz9d

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25apr518

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : Fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum are the major sources of fuel for energy generation. These two fuels produce gaseous pollutants that are dangerous to the environment. In this study, the economy of a 10 MW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant is assessed using Coal-to-solid waste ratios of 1:1 and 4:1 under two financial conditions namely: With Feedstock Costing (WFC) and Without Feedstock Costing (WOFC). The annual feedstock requirement of the plant and feed rate were estimated from the lower heating value of the fuel that was determined from a model equation, and the results were used for the assessment of the power plant. The Net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period (PBP) as investment tools, were used to evaluate the venture for 10th, 15th and 20th year. Coal + Pine saw- dust (PSD) mixed at a ratio of 1:1 was the optimum SA and Nigerian feedstocks, while the optimum year was at the 10th year. The annual profit WFC from the Nigerian and SA 1:1 Coal-to-PSD fuel ratio were NGN828,200,058.80 (USA517,625.04) and ZAR87,128,003.27 (USA5,125,176.67). The profits were 13.82 % and 28.40 % higher than that of solitary gasification of coal, respectively. A comparison of the Nigerian coal and Nigeria Coal + PSD WFC, revealed that about 5,106,875.44 kg/Yr of feedstock was saved from Coal + PSD (1:1) which resulted to an increase in the profit by 43.24 % per annum, whereas 3,737,610.81kg/Yr was saved from the South African Coal + PSD which resulted to about 13.82 % compared to solitary gasification of the South African coal. The 1:1 Coal-to-Solid Waste ratio was the optimum blend for all the feedstocks investigated.

Keywords : Biomass; Coal; Co-Gasification; Electricity and Heat; Economic Assessment.

References :

1. L.M. Mohlala, M.O. Bodunrin, A.A.  Awosusi, M.O. Daramola, N.P. Cele, and P.A. Olubambi, ‘‘Beneficiation of corncob and sugarcane bagasse for energy generation and materials development in Nigeria and South Africa: A short overview’’ Alexandria Engineering Journal 3, 3025-3036, 2016.
2. Stats SA: Electricity generated and available distribution (P4141). Retrieved from STATS SA (Statistics South Africa) website on 20-02-17: Available online at: http://.www.stats, 2015.
3. SA Power Network ‘‘South Africa Power Network’’ Retrieved from SA Power Network website on 22-03-17.  Available online at: https://www.sapowernetworks.com.au/centric/industry/our_network/network_tariffs.jsp, 2015.
4. UNDP, ‘‘Converting waste Agricultural Biomass into Resources’’ Compedium of Technology, United Nations Environmental Programme, Japan, 2009.
5. M. Ozonoh, T.C. Aniokete, B.O. Oboirien and M.O. Daramola ‘‘Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat production by co-gasification of coal, biomass and waste tyre in South Africa’’ Journal of Cleaner Production 201, 192 – 206, 2018.
6. A.V. Bridgwater, A.J. Toft, and J.G. Brammer ‘‘A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion’’ Renew Sust Energ Rev, 6, 181-248, 2002.
7. A.C. Caputo, M. Palumbo, P.M. Pelaggage, and F. Scacchia ‘‘Economics of biomass energy utilization in combustion and gasification plants: effects on logistic variables’’ Biomass Bioenerg, 28, 35-51, 2005.
8. C.P. Mitchell, A.V. Bridgwater, D.J. Stevens, A.J. Toft, and M.P. ‘‘Techno-economic assessment of biomass to energy’’ Biomass Bioenerg, 9, 205-26, 1995.
9. E. Searcy and P.C. Flynn. A criterion for selecting renewable energy processes. Biomass Bioenerg 34, 798 – 804, 2010.
10. B.O. Oboirien, B.C. North, S.O. Obayopo, J.K. Odusote, and E.R. Sadiku ‘‘Analysis of clean coal technology in Nigeria for energy generation’’ Energy Strategy Reviews 20, 64-70, 2018.
11. A. Malek, A.B.M. Hasanuzzaman, M. Rahim, and Y.A.A Turki ‘‘Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of a 10 MW biomass-based power plant in Malaysia’’ Journal of Cleaner Production 141, 502-513, 2017.
12. A. Demirbas ‘‘Biomass resource facilities and biomass conversion processing for fuels and chemicals’’ Energy Conv. Manag. 42, 1357-1378, 2001.
13. F. Ahmadi, A.L Amin, A.Q. Hasanuzzaman, R. Saidur ‘‘Alternative energy resources in Bangladesh and future prospect’’ Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 25, 2013.