June 2013. Vol. 3, No.

4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS IN NIGERIA:

OPTIONS, PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES

Diji, C.J. PhD

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
E-mail: [email protected];

ABSTRACT
Biomass power, also called bio power, is electricity produced from biomass fuels. Biomass consists of plant
materials and animal products. Biomass fuels include residues from food production and processing, trees and
grasses grown specifically as energy crops, and gaseous fuels produced from solid biomass and wastes.
This paper highlights the various biomass materials available in the country and the available technologies that are
used for converting biomass to electricity. The paper also highlights the broad policy objectives of government with
regards to the development of renewable energy in general and biomass development in particular.
The paper concludes by exploring based on global experiences and best practices, the various options, and their
resulting prospects and challenges in producing electricity from biomass. The paper highlighting the fact that
though the prospects of using biomass for electricity generation is high; land availability, plant location, scale and
choice of technology and distribution of economic benefits are factors that have to be considered in deploying
biomass for electricity generation in Nigeria.

Keywords: Energy, Biomass, Electricity production

eucalyptus). Grasses used as energy crops
1.0 Biomass and Bioenergy are usually thin stemmed grasses which can
grow in hot and wet climates such as sugar
Biomass is defined as organic material, available on cane, sweet sorghum, elephant grasses and
renewable basis, which are produced directly or phalaris. Oil plants such as soybeans and
indirectly from living organisms without sunflowers can be used for producing fuel
contamination from other substances or effluents. for energy production.
Biomass includes forest and mill residue, agricultural
crops and wastes, wood and wood wastes, animal 2. Forestry Residues – This are wood fuels
waste, livestock operation residues, aquatic plants, produced from existing lumbering and
fast growing trees and plants, municipal and coppicing operations in established forestry
industrial waste. The various types of plant biomass such as wood chips, forestry trimmings,
are shown in Table 1. sawdust and bark.

The range of biomass and waste feedstocks available 3. Agricultural Wastes – This are biomass
for utilization is very wide. A general categorization wastes produced by agricultural farming
can be considered which comprises: practices for food production such as straw,
bagasse and poultry litter.
1. Energy Crops – Biomass fuels grown
specifically for use as fuels for energy 4. Municipal Waste – This are wastes
production. These include trees, grasses and generated from household, industrial and
oil plants. Trees used as energy plants are commercial sources. This waste can be raw,
usually those that can grow back after being i.e. unsegregated or segregated (glass, metal
cut off close to the ground and can be paper etc). It can also be in its ‘as produced’
harvested every 3 – 8 years for a period of form or densified to form a pellet,
20 – 30 years such as willow, popular and
84
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

commonly known as dRDF (densified from other conventional energy sources in a number
Refuse derived Fuel). of ways that include lower density; higher moisture
content, often up to 50%; lower calorific value;
5. Specialized Industrial Wastes – These are
broader size distribution, unless pre – conditioned by
a range of waste materials generated by
screening, crushing or pelletizing; the variability of
industry that have the potential to be used
the materials as fuels and the sulphur and nitrogen
for energy production. Examples include
contents are often lower.
tyres, clinical waste, waste solvents and
other chemicals, car fragmentation waste, Biomass provides 14% of the world’s energy
meat processing wastes and waste derived resources or about 28 million barrels of oil equivalent
products. per day (Mboe/day) and is the most important source
of energy in developing countries (Afgan et al, 2007).
In terms of their physical and chemical
characteristics, the various biomass material differ

Table 1: Types of Plant Biomass

Woody Biomass Non – Woody Biomass Processed Waste Processed Fuels
Trees Energy crops such as sugar cane Cereal husks and cobs Charcoal (wood and
residues)
Shrubs and Scrub Cereal straw Bagasse Briquetted or densified
biomass
Bushes such as Cotton, cassava, tobacco stems Wastes from pineapple Methanol and ethanol
coffee and tea and roots (partly woody) and other fruits (wood alcohol)
Sweeping from Grass Palm oil cakes Plant oils such as palm,
forest floor rapeseed (canola) and
sunflower
Bamboo Bananas and Plantains Sawmill waste Producer gas
Palms Soft stems, such as those of Industrial wood bark and Biogas
pulses and potatoes logging wastes
Swamps and water plants Black liquor from pulp
mills
Municipal wastes

1.1 The Nigerian Biomass Resources The biomass energy resources of Nigeria have been
estimated to be 144million tonnes/year. Nigeria
The biomass resources of Nigeria consist of wood,
presently consumes about 43.4 x 109 kg of firewood
forage grasses and scrubs, animal wastes arising from
annually. The average daily consumption is about 0.5
forestry, agricultural, municipal and industrial
to 1.0 kg of dry wood per person (REMP, 2005)
activities, as well as acquatic biomass. Previously,
Table 2 shows the total area of Nigeria, distributed
biomass dominated Nigeria’s energy landscape,
among the various uses.
contributing 37% of total energy demand, and the
energy of choice for the vast majority of rural
dwellers and the urban poor. However, the resource
base is under pressure from both human activities and
natural factors such as drought.
Table 2: Nigeria’s Size and land use parameters
NIGERIA QUANTITY (Million ha) PERCENTAGE %
A. SIZE
Total Area 92.4 100
Land Area 79.4 85.9
Water bodies (rivers, lakes etc) 13 14.1
85
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

B. LAND USE
Agricultural Land 71.9 77.8
Arable Cropland 28.2 30.5
Permanent Cropland 2.5 2.7
Pasture Land 28.3 30.6
Forest and Woodland 10.9 11.6
Fadama 2 2.2
Others 7.5 8.1
Source: (REMP, 2005)

From Table 2 it can be seen that of the total Nigerian potential and availability (Leskoviku, 2006) and is
land area of 92.4 million hectares, 79.4million is generally accomplished through biological, thermal
occupied by land while the remaining 13.0million and chemical processes. There are four major ways in
hectares are occupied by water bodies. Based on which biomass is converted into usable energy
1996 recorded crop production for Nigeria, there was sources. These are:
an aggregate crop production of about 93.3 million
1. Fermentation: This involves the conversion
tonnes for the major crops. This quantity refers to the
of various plants, especially corn using
harvested useful parts of the plants. This discarded
several types of processes to produce
parts consisting of roots, leaves, stalks, straws, chaff
ethanol. The two most commonly used
and other parts of plant shoot (otherwise called crop
process involves using yeast to ferment the
biomass) would be far in excess of this figure
starch in plants and using enzymes to break
(REMP, 2005).
down the cellulose in the plant fibre. Ethanol
The foregoing shows that Nigeria has a huge and is used as a fuel source in automobiles.
enormous potential for production of agricultural
2. Burning: Biomass is burned in waste – to –
biomass.
energy plants to produce steam for making
The country’s estimate of wood resources available electricity or for providing heat for
has been provided by the Forestry Monitoring and industries and homes.
Evaluation Coordinating Unit (FORMECU). The
3. Bacterial Decay: This involves the process
agency estimated that the supply possibility of
of bacteria feeding on dead plants and
Nigeria’s fuel wood is 78.9 million m3 for 1994. Fuel
animals for methane production. Methane is
wood production takes place in all parts of the
the main ingredient in natural gas. Methane
Nigeria. Although the available fuel wood volume is
is produced through many landfills and
much higher in the high forest zone, intensity of fuel
garbage’s; and are used for electricity
wood extraction appears much greater in the northern
production.
states. Other possible biomass resource base includes
aquatic plants such as water hyacinth and municipal 4. Conversion: Biomass can be converted into
wastes both of which constitute major environmental gas or liquid fuels by using chemicals or
problems. These present opportunities for meeting heat. In India, cow manure is converted to
energy needs sustainably. natural gas for electricity production.
Methane gas can also be converted to
methanol, a liquid form of methane.
1.2 Bioenergy – Energy from Biomass
In recent times, there has been renewed interest in
Transformation of biomass and waste materials into a biomass energy development due to several factors,
source of energy is closely related to biomass some of which include:
86
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

1. Growing concerns about climate change – Finally, biomass crops can create better wildlife
biofuels can be carbon – neutral if they are habitat than food crops. Since they are native plants,
produced in a sustainable way. they attract a greater variety of birds and small
mammals. They improve the habitat for fish by
2. Technological advances in biomass
increasing water quality in nearby streams and ponds.
conversion, combined with significant
And since they have a wider window of time to be
changes in the global energy market.
harvested, energy crop harvests can be timed to avoid
3. Biofuels have the unique characteristics of critical nesting or breeding seasons. In addition to the
being the only source of renewable energy many environmental benefits, biomass offers many
that are available in gaseous, liquid and solid economic and energy security benefits. By growing
states. our fuels at home, we reduce dependence on fossil
fuels and the problems associated with disruptions in
4. Increasing focus on security of energy their supply. Farmers and rural areas will gain a new
supply and and valuable outlet for their products and improve the
5. Increasing interest in renewable energy rate of development in the rural areas.
generally.
This paper is an exploratory study of the options,
Bioenergy could in principle provide all the world’s prospects and challenges of generating electricity
energy requirements, but its real technical and from biomass in Nigeria. The paper is divided into
economic potential is much lower. The World Energy five parts. The first part includes the introduction to
Council (WEC) survey of energy resources biomass and Bioenergy, while the second part
(WEC,2001) estimates that Bioenergy could discusses various Biomass - to - electricity
theoretically provide 2900EJ/year of energy, but conversion options. The third part introduces the
technical and economic factors limits its current assessment indicators for evaluating energy
practical potential to just 270EJ/year. According to conversion processes, while the fourth part evaluates
the report, the practical potential is limited by several the options, challenges and prospects of developing
factors which include poor matching between biomass based power plants in Nigeria. The fifth part
demand and resources, and high costs compared to concludes.
other energy sources.
Biomass energy brings numerous environmental 2.0 Biomass Power
benefits—reducing air and water pollution,
increasing soil quality and reducing erosion, and Biopower or biomass power is electricity produced
improving wildlife habitat. Biomass reduces air from biomass fuels. Biomass – fired plants have been
pollution by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 explored, both in developed and developing
percent compared with fossil fuels. Sulphur dioxide countries. For example in India, biomass power –
and other pollutants are also reduced substantially. generated capacity of about 302Mw have been
Biomass energy also makes productive use of crop
commissioned through 54 projects by India’s
residues, wood-manufacturing wastes, and the clean
portion of urban wastes. These "useless" wastes ministry of New and Renewable energy Sources
would otherwise be open-burned, left to rot in fields, (MNRE, 2009). There are also several biomass –
or buried in a landfill. Wastes that rot in the field fired and co – fired plants across Europe and America
often produce methane, a greenhouse gas even more (Wiltsee, 2000). The Energy Information
potent than carbon dioxide. Burying energy-rich Administration (EIA) in its annual energy outlook of
wastes in a landfill is like burying petroleum instead 2002, projected that biomass will generate 15.3
of using it.
billion kilowatts of electricity or 0.3% of the
Water pollution is reduced because fewer fertilizers projected 5,476 billion kilowatts of total generation
and pesticides are used to grow energy crops, and in 2020 (EIA, 2001). Biopower is a natural fit for the
erosion is reduced. In contrast to high-yield food electric power industry and is good for the
crops that pull nutrients from the soil, energy crops
environment. This is because biomass fuels are
actually improve soil quality; since they are replanted
only every 10 years, there is minimal ploughing that renewable, they help reduce greenhouse gas
causes soil to erode. emissions from fossil fuels and make productive use

87
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

of crop residues, wood – manufacturing wastes, and There are basically two modes of utilizing biomass
the clean portion of urban wastes. for electricity production. The first is by a dedicated
use of biomass, while the second is by co – firing
Biomass-based power systems are unique among biomass with an existing fossil fuels plant. The
nonhydro renewable power sources because of their technology for the primary direct use of biomass for
wide range of applicability to a diverse set of needs. electricity production is direct combustion,
Biomass systems can be used for village-power gasification, pyrolysis and biochemical degradation.
applications in the 10–250 kW scale, for larger scale
municipal electricity and heating applications, for 2.1.1 Direct Combustion
industrial application such as hog-fuel boilers and
black-liquor recovery boilers, in agricultural Direct combustion involves the oxidation of biomass
applications such as electricity and steam generation with excess air, giving hot flue gases which are used
in the sugar cane industry, and for utility-scale to produce steam in the heat exchanger sections of
electricity generation in the 100 MW scale. Biomass- the boiler; the steam then turns a turbine, which is
based systems are the only nonhydro renewable connected to a generator that produces electricity, as
source of electricity that can be used for base-load shown in Figure 1. Biomass can also be co –fired
electricity generation. with coal in a boiler (in a conventional power plant)
to produce steam and electricity. The majority of
biomass electricity is generated by the direct
2.1 Converting Biomass to Electricity: combustion process.
Technical Options

Figure 1: Direct Combustion system

2.1.2 Gasification
Gasification for power production involves the Gasification medium is an important variable. In air –
devolatization and conversion of biomass in an blown or directly heated gasifier, the heat necessary
atmosphere of steam and /or air to produce a medium to devolatize the biomass and convert the residual
or low calorific value gas known as producer gas, carbon – rich chars is derived by the exothermic
which is used for power generation. A large number reaction between oxygen and the organic material. In
of variables affect gasification – based process these directly heated gasifiers, the heat to drive the
design. Three major variables can be identified, these process is generated within the gasifier. Indirectly
are: gasification medium, Gasifier operating pressure heated gasifiers accomplish biomass heating and
and reactor type. gasification through heat transfer from a hot solid or

88
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

through a heat transfer surface. The second variable The third major variable is reactor type. For biomass
affecting gasification – based power systems gasification four primary types of reactor systems
performance is gasifier operating pressure. A have been developed. These are: Fixed – bed
reactors; bubbling fluid – bed reactors; circulating
pressurized gasifier will produce gas at a pressure
fluid – bed reactors and entrained flow reactors.
suitable for direct turbine application and provide the Gasification reactors operate under the same
highest overall process efficiency. Alternatively, the principles as comparable combustors. Figure 2 shows
gasifier can be operated at low pressure and the the Battelle biomass gasification process.
cleaned product gas compressed to the pressure
required for gas turbine applications.

Figure 2: The Batelle Biomass Gasification Process

2.1.3 Pyrolysis liquid and gaseous pyrolytic products in significant
portions. This is the process mainly used for the
Pyrolysis is another emerging technology of using production of charcoal. Slow pyrolysis of biomass is
biomass for electricity generation. This process associated with high charcoal content, but the fast
involves the conversion of biomass to liquids, gases pyrolysis is associated with tar at low temperature
and char – liquid fuels being the main target. Power (675 – 775K), and /or gas at high temperature.
generation using this technology is essentially the use However at present, the preferred pyrolysis
technology is fast or flash pyrolysis at high temp with
of pyrolytic oils for the gas turbine integrated into a
very short residence times (Demirbas, 2008).
combined cycle (Katyal, 2007). Pyrolysis is the
burning of solid fuels in the absence of oxygen and is Fast pyrolysis (more accurately defined as
the fundamental chemical reaction process that is the thermolysis) is a process in which a material such as
biomass is rapidly heated to high temperature in the
precursor of both the gasification and combustion of
absence of oxygen, while flash pyrolysis of biomass
solid fuels. is the thermochemical process that converts small
Conventional pyrolysis occurs under a slow heating dried biomass particles into a liquid fuel (bio – fuel
rate. This condition permits the production of solid, or bio – crude) for almost 75%, and char and non –
89
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

condensable gases by heating the biomass to 775K in operating parameters for the various pyrolysis
the absence of oxygen. Table 3 shows the main processes (Demirbas, 2009).
Table 3: Main Operating Parameters For Pyrolysis Processes
Parameters Conventional Pyrolysis Fast Pyrolysis Flash Pyrolysis
Pyrolytic Temperature (K) 550 – 900 850 – 1250 1050 - 1300
Heat rate (K/s) 0.01 – 1 10 – 200 >1000
Particle Size (mm) 5 – 50 <1 <0.2
Solid residence time (sec) 300 – 3600 0.5 – 10 <0.5

Biomass pyrolysis is an attractive option because complex chemicals, such as fat and protein, into
solid biomass and wastes can be readily converted progressively simpler molecules. The final product is
into liquid products. These liquids, as crude bio – oil a biogas containing methane and carbon dioxide. The
or slurry of char or oil, have advantages in transport,
biogas can be used for heating or for electricity
storage, combustion, retrofitting and flexibility in
production and marketing. generation in a modified internal Combustion engine.
However, advanced gasification technologies are
necessary for converting animal waste to a biogas
2.1.3 Biochemical Processes with sufficient energy to fuel a gas turbine. As seen
Biochemical processes is another major method of in Figure 3, the process takes place in three stages
using biomass for electricity generation. This and it must be noted that different kinds of micro –
involves the production of biogas for electricity organisms are responsible for the process that
generation and other uses by digesting food or animal characterize each stage. Landfills also produce a
wastes in the absence of oxygen, as shown in Figure methane rich biogas from the decay of wastes
3. This process, called anaerobic digestion, will occur containing biomass. However, landfill gas must be
in any air tight container containing a mixture of cleaned to remove harmful and corrosive chemicals
bacteria normally present in animal waste. Different before it can be used to generate electricity.
types of bacteria work in sequence to break down

Figure 3: Anaerobic Digestion

90
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

R&D data for the development of renewable

3.0 Assessment Indicators for Evaluating technologies are not well defined because there is no
Biomass Energy Conversion Systems universally accepted definition of R&D. The
technological indicator comprises two sub-elements:
In assessing the options, challenges and prospects of Development Capital and Market elements. The
using biomass for electricity production, five major Development capital sub-indicator is determined by
indicators were considered. These are the Political, the amount of research and development going on in
Economic, Environmental, Technological and Social the development of biomass – based power plants,
indicators. while the market segment is based on the forecast of
energy consumption in the period of the next 50
years.
3.1 Political Indicator
3.5 Social Indicator
The Political indicator refers to the political will and
determination of the Nigerian government to Currently, it is becoming very urgent to take into
formulate and implement policies and programmes consideration the social aspect in the evaluation of
that will lead to project conception, implementation power plants. In this respect, in this analysis, the
and development of biomass – based power following social sub-indicators are taken into
production. consideration: New Job opportunity, Area required
and Health effect on the surrounding population. The
New Job sub-indicator comprises the number of jobs
3.2 Economic Indicator to be open per unit MW (World Energy Council
2000). The high requirement for the area to be used
The Economic indicator comprises the economic for the construction of a power plant is imminent for
assessment of the energy system; among those are: any power generation system. In this evaluation, the
efficiency, electricity cost and investment cost. The health parameter is derived from the NOx
efficiency of the system is considered as the integral concentration in the surrounding of the power plant.
parameter which reflects the performance of the
system as thermodynamic system. The electricity cost
sub-indicator represents the total energy cost and is a
measure of the quality of the system. The investment 4.0 Evaluation of Biopower in Nigeria
cost comprises material cost, design and construction
cost of the system.
4.1 Prospects
3.3 Environmental Indicator
There is now a consensus in Nigeria, that renewable
The environment indicator has become a governing energy can play a significant role in the overall
parameter in the evaluation of energy system. Among energy development of the nation. These views were
the Green House Gases the CO2 concentration in flue well articulated in the National Energy Policy (NEP)
gases of the power plant is the most important of the country which was promulgated in August
characteristic for the environment assessment of 2002 and further amplified by the Renewable energy
energy system (Bain et al. 2003). The CO2 cycle in Master Plan (REMP) of the country which was
utilization of biomass shows one of the main developed by the Energy Commission of Nigeria
advantages of the biomass system in power plant (ECN), in conjunction with the United Nations
systems. NOx and SOx concentration in flue gas is Development Programme (UNDP) in November
contributing to the adverse effect of the utilization of 2005.
biomass. For this reason, the evaluation of
concentration of these gases in the biomass energy The overall objective of the Renewable Energy
system is of primary interest for the quality Master Plan (REMP) is to articulate a national vision,
assessment of the biomass energy system. targets and a road map for addressing key
development challenges facing Nigeria through the
3.4 Technological Indicator accelerated development and exploitation of
renewable energy. It puts in place a comprehensive
Renewable technologies include modern biomass, framework for developing renewable energy policies,
solar, wind, hydro and geothermal technologies. The legal instruments, technologies, manpower,
91
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

infrastructure and market to ensure that the visions biomass 14%, wind 1.3% and solar thermal 0.7%
and targets are realized. Among other things, the (REMP, 2005).
master plan has the following specific objectives:
The REMP projects that biomass will be expected to
1. Expanding access to energy services and
contribute a total of 50MW of electricity in the
reducing poverty, especially in the rural
medium term i.e. 2015 and 400MW in the long term
areas, through renewable energy
i.e. by 2025. Currently, a lot of research efforts are
development;
going on in the area of exploiting biomass energy for
2. Stimulating economic growth, employment electricity production, while substantial research
and empowerment; results have been achieved by relevant agencies in
the public and private sector in biogas production, the
3. Increasing the scope and quality of rural
development of improved wood stoves and biomass
services, including schools, health services,
briquetting technologies (Sambo. 2007)
water supply, information, entertainment
and stemming the migration to urban areas; The implications of these targets is a rapid scale up of
most of the renewable energy technology
4. Reducing environmental degradation and
applications, as the REMP envisions towards the
health risks, particularly to vulnerable
coming decades a nation driven increasingly by
groups such as women and children;
renewable energy and this makes the prospects of
5. Improving learning, capacity building, biomass development for electricity generation very
research and development on various high.
renewable energy technologies in the
country; and
6. Providing a road map for achieving a
substantial share of the national of the 4.2 Options
energy supply mix through renewable With respect to selecting the best options in
energy, thereby facilitating the achievement technology for the development of Biopower, the
of an optimal energy mix. country has to be guided by best global practices and
The master plan sets clear and verifiable national the experience of other countries in this area.
targets in the short, medium and long term. Short Currently .With prices ranging from 7.5 to 16.4
term targets will be achieved by the year 2007, c/kWh and an average price of 6.9 c/kWh, biomass
medium term targets will be achieved by the year power production is not cost effective at present,
2015 coinciding with the target year for the MDGs; where fossil fuel technologies are available for an
long term targets are set for 2025, two decades after average of 4.2–4.8 c/kWh (Evans et al, 2009).
launching of the REMP. By 2007, the REMP However, according to Sa´ez et al, 1998; when
envisages an aggregate electricity demand of externalities, such as human health, soil erosion, etc.
7000MW with new renewable energy (excluding are included, the total price of biomass is cheaper
large scale hydro) playing a marginal role. In 2015, than coal.
the country will likely achieve a doubling of Hatje and Ruhl, 2000; state that biomass is the most
electricity demand to about 14,000MW of which new profitable renewable energy source after hydropower,
renewables will constitute about 5% (710MW). In with respect to total energy and carbon reduction
2025, aggregate electricity demand will increase to costs. Comparing to the median electricity costs of
29,000MW with new renewable energy making up the remaining renewable electricity technologies
10% of the total energy demand of the country. Small shown by Evans et al, 2009; biomass is cheaper than
hydro plants will represent over 66% of the entire photovoltaic (24 c/kWh), approximately equal with
new renewable energy contributions; solar PV 17%, geothermal (6.8 c/kWh) but more expensive than
92
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

wind (6.6 c/kWh) and hydro (5.1 c/kWh). Investment shows that average efficiencies stands at about 27%,
costs for biomass to energy conversion exceed other with combined cycle gasification processes showing
thermal technologies by a factor of 3–4 due to higher the greatest efficiencies of up to 43% (Gustavsson,
2003).
processing volumes and increased handling
requirements. The capital intensive nature of biomass According to most authors, electricity generation
technology can deter investment. Also, financing from biomass produces low net carbon emissions,
biomass plant construction can be complicated mostly in the form of carbon dioxide, as shown in
Table 4. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane
because many conversion technologies are still in
and nitrous oxide are emitted in smaller amounts (2%
pilot scale (Clean Energy Council, 2008). or less of total emissions Wihersaari, 2005). Where
When selecting between different technologies, emissions include methane and nitrous oxide, figures
combustion based technologies are more profitable are reported as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2eq.
over their life cycle than gasification and pyrolysis, The average carbon emission in Table 4 is 62.5
despite higher operating costs (Caputo et al, 2005). gCO2/kWh. The highest emission, 132 gCO2eq/kWh
Capital costs for direct combustion are around $1.9– (Styles and Jones, 2007) is less than one third of the
2.9/kW. For pyrolysis, costs are much higher at $3.5– lowest natural gas and one fifth of the lowest coal
4.5/kW, making it one of the most capital intensive fired power station emissions proven at present.
electricity generation technologies (Yoshida et al, Wihersaari, 2005 calculated the minimum
2003), comparable with nuclear. greenhouse gas reduction when substituting biomass
in the place of fossil fuels at 74%, up to a maximum
Efficiencies of energy conversion from biomass also of 98%.
vary widely across different technologies. This is an
area under intense development, with many new,
highly efficient technologies emerging. Table 3
summarizes efficiencies found in literature; the Table

Table 3: The Efficiency of energy Conversion from Biomass to Electricity

Author/s Year Efficiency % Comment
Craig and Mann 1996 35.4 – 39.7 Gasifier
Gustavsson 1997 36 Combustion
Faaij et al 1997 35.4 – 40.3 Gasifier
Bain et al 1998 35
Stahl and Neergaarf 1998 32 Gasifier
Chum and Overend 2001 17.2 Gasifier
Berndes 2001 20 – 25 combustion
Ganesh and Banerjee 2001 26 Combustion
Ganesh and Banerjee 2001 40 Combustion
Ganesh and Banerjee 2001 28 Gasifier
Ganesh and Banerjee 2001 31 Pyrolysis
Bain and Overend 2002 20
IEA Bioenergy 2002 25 5 – 10 MW
McKendry 2002 30 Gasifier
Gustavsson and Madlener 2003 30 Combustion
Gustavsson and Madlener 2003 43 Combustion
La Cour Jansen 2003 24
Yoshida et al 2003 19 – 26 Combustion
Yoshida et al 2003 16 – 30 Gasifier
Benetto et al 2004 22
Corti and Lombardi 2004 35 Gasifier
Siewert et al 2004 35 Foster Wheeler, high efficiency

93
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

Franco and Giannini 2005 15 – 30 Small to large depends on steam temperature

Ahrenfeldt et al 2006 25 Wood to electricity
WEC 2007 20
Source: Evans et al, 2009

Table 4: Full Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biomass Power Production
Author/s Year gCO2/kWh Comment
Faaij et al 1998 24
Norton 1999 30 – 40
Gustavsson and Madlener 2003 48 Steam turbine
Gustavsson and Madlener 2003 37 CC
Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi 2007 58eq
Styles and Jones 2007 131eq miscanthus
Styles and Fones 2007 132 SRC willow
*eq denotes CO2 equivalent in these values, soutce: A. Evans et al, 2009.

4.3 Challenges 4.3.2 Biomass Plant Location

Even though the prospects are high, the following Since biomass is a low energy density fuel, the
broad factors have to be considered in using biomass biomass conversion facility should be located near
for electricity production. the source of the bioenergy to avoid high transport
cost. Also measures have to be put in place to protect
4.3.1 Land Availability small farmers near such a plant. However, this
Growing biomass for electricity production on a consideration must be considered along with the
significant scale consume both land and labour. Land benefits of sighting such a plant such as increased
use in particular is a key issue in the production of rural employment at all skilled levels, a secure
Bioenergy resources, because using land for energy market for agricultural production and the provision
crops means that less land is available to grow crops. of cheap indigenous supplies of energy.
Thus it is imperative to ensure that sufficient 4.3.3 Scale and choice of Technology
cropland is available to produce food for the rapidly
growing Nigeria’s population, taking into The biomass conversion facility should be evaluated
consideration that biomass energy can help enhance based on both the number of acres that can be treated
development and food production. and the demonstrated capacity to sustain this
treatment over the duration necessary to amortize
Bioenergy production for electricity purposes can be biomass facility investment. Also the biomass project
a way to rehabilitate marginal and degraded land and should demonstrate a collaborative multi –
bring it back into profitable use. This will only stakeholder commitment for developing ecologically
happen, however, if it is supported by policy. defensible strategies.
Without policy, there is danger that Bioenergy
production will seek good land, where yields are The choice of technology for biomass conversion
higher and so compete directly with food production. should be based on demonstrated minimum
However, in places where there is almost no spare efficiency of at least 35% or higher. The facility
land that could be used for bioenergy agro forestry, should be able to capture and reuse of otherwise
efficient energy conversion technologies and the use wasted losses. The projects should demonstrate that
of agricultural waste could create significant amount they are capable of being economically self –
of bioenergy for electricity production. sustaining in current and anticipated markets. The

94
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

selection of technology for biomass conversion 2. Ganesh A, Banerjee R. Biomass pyrolysis

should consider minimum investment risk and for power generation a potential technology.
maximum financial returns; consideration should also Renew Energy 2001; 22:9–14.
be given for at least a part of the project being funded 3. IEA Bioenergy. Sustainable production of
by local investment, because biomass projects woody biomass for energy; 2002, available
represent an important opportunity for building local from
capacity and local economic assets. This should not http://www.ieabioenergy.com/library/157_P
ositionPaper- Sustainable Production of
however lead to selection of antiquated biomass
Woody Biomass for Energy.pdf accessed
technology systems, though reliable but are less 1/11/2009.
efficient and often have high level of pollutant
4. Thornley P. Increasing biomass based power
emissions.
generation in the UK. Energy Policy 2006;
34: 2087–99.
4.3.4 Distribution of Economic Benefits
5. Goor F, Davydchuk V, Ledent JF.
Most biomass facilities require harvesting operations, Assessment of the potential of willow SRC
sometimes using highly mechanized operations often plants for energy production in areas
conducted by non – local contractors. Thus the value contaminated by radionuclide deposits:
of economic activity should be geared towards methodology and perspectives. Biomass
sharing the benefits of the economic activity with the Bioenergy 2001; 21:225–35.
objective of a high value/high return community 6. McKendry P. Energy production from
based approach. Projects which can demonstrate the biomass. Part 1. Overview of biomass.
highest contribution to local economic development Bioresour Technol 2002;83:37–46.
in disadvantaged areas should be encouraged. 7. Tampier M, Smith D, Bibeau E,
Beauchemin PA. Stage 2 report: life-cycle
The creation of local economic value is substantially
GHG emission reduction benefits of selected
affected by the degree to which value – added feedstock-to-product threads. Identifying
enterprises are integrated with biomass utilization Environmentally Preferable Uses for
facilities. Proposals which develop or encourage co – Biomass Resources; 2004.
location of value – added enterprises with biomass
8. Abbasi SA, Abbasi N. Likely adverse
facilities will generate significant greater economic environmental impacts of renewable energy
value while reducing the local demand on resources. sources. Appl Energy 2000;65 :121–44.
9. McCarl BA, Adams DM, Alig RJ, Chmelik
JT. Competitiveness of biomass-fueled
5.0 Conclusion electrical power plants. Ann Oper Res
2000; 94:37–55.
Biomass energy represents a veritable renewable
energy source for electricity generation. The paper 10. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA. Life
has examined the options, prospects and challenges cycle assessment of a willow Bioenergy
cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy
of using biomass for electricity generation in the
2003;25:147–65.
country considering particularly the issues of land
availability, plant location, scale and choice of 11. Clean Energy Council (CEC). Australian
technology and distribution of economic benefits. bioenergy roadmap: setting the direction for
biomass in stationary energy to 2020 and
beyond; 2008.

References A. Evans et al. / Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews 14
1. Bain RL, Overend RP, Craig KR. Biomass- (2010) 1419–1427 1425
fired power generation. Fuel Process
Technol 1998; 54:1–16.
95
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

12. Clean Energy Council (CEC). Biomass 23. Craig KR, Mann MK. Cost and performance
resource appraisal; 2002. analysis of biomass-based integrated
gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC)
13. Strezov V, Evans T, Hayman C. Thermal
power systems. National Renewable Energy
conversion of elephant grass (Pennisetum
Laboratory; 1996.
Purpureum Schum) to biogas, bio-oil and
charcoal. Bioresour Technol 2008;99: 8394– 24. Elliott P. Biomass-energy overview in the
9. context of Brazilian biomass-power
demonstration. Bioresour Technol
14. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B,
1993;46:13–22.
Turkenburg W. Exploration of regional and
global cost-supply curves of biomass energy 25. Faaij A, Meuleman B, Turkenburg W, van
from short-rotation crops at abandoned Wijk A, Bauen A, Rosillo-Calle F, et al.
cropland and rest land under four IPCC Externalities of biomass based electricity
SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass production compared with power generation
Bioenergy 2009;33: 26–43. from coal in the Netherlands. Biomass
Bioenergy 1998; 14:125–47.
15. Koh MP, Hoi WK. Sustainable biomass
production for energy in Malaysia. Biomass 26. Faaij A, van Ree R, Waldheim L, Olsson E,
Bioenergy 2003;25 :517–29. Oudhuis A, van Wijk A, et al. Gasification
of biomass wastes and residues for
16. Alonso-Pippo W, Luengo CA, Koehlinger J,
electricity production. Biomass Bioenergy
Garzone P, Cornacchia G. Sugarcane energy
1997;12:387–407.
use: the Cuban case. Energy Policy 2008;
36:2163–81. 27. Fung PYH, Kirschbaum MUF, Raison RJ,
Stucley C. The potential for Bioenergy
17. Bain RL, Overend RP. Biomass for heat and
production from Australian forests, its
power. For Prod J 2002; 52:12–9.
contribution to national greenhouse targets
18. Bakos GC, Tsioliaridou E, Potolias C. and recent developments in conversion
Technoeconomic assessment and strategic processes. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;
analysis of heat and power co-generation 22:223–36.
(CHP) from biomass in Greece. Biomass
28. Gustavsson L, Madlener R. CO2 mitigation
Bioenergy 2008;32 :558–67.
costs of large-scale Bioenergy technologies
19. Blanco MI, Azqueta D. Can the in competitive electricity markets. Energy
environmental benefits of biomass support 2003; 28: 1405–25.
agriculture? The case of cereals for
29. Hamelinck CN, Suurs RAA, Faaij APC.
electricity and bioethanol production in
International bioenergy transport costs and
Northern Spain. Energy Policy
energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;36:357–66.
2005;29: 114–34.
20. Braunbeck O, Bauen A, Rosillo-Calle F,
30. Kumar A, Cameron JB, Flynn PC. Biomass
Cortez L. Prospects for green cane
power cost and optimum plant size in
harvesting and cane residue use in Brazil.
western Canada. Biomass Bioenergy
Biomass Bioenergy 1999;17: 495– 506.
2003;24: 445–64.
21. Bridgwater AV. The technical and
31. Kumar A, Flynn P, Sokhansanj S. Biopower
economic-feasibility of biomass gasification
generation from mountain pine infested
for power generation. Fuel 1995; 74:631–53.
wood in Canada: an economical opportunity
22. Bridgwater AV, Toft AJ, Brammer JG. A for greenhouse gas mitigation. Renew
techno-economic comparison of power Energy 2008; 33:1354–63.
production by biomass fast pyrolysis with
32. McKendry P. Energy production from
gasification and combustion. Renew Sust
biomass. Part 3. Gasification technologies.
Energy Rev 2002;6:181–248.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83 :55–63.

96
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

33. Siewert A, Niemela¨ K, Vilokki H. Initial biomass gasifier. Energy Fuel 2006;
operating experience of three new high 20:2672–80.
efficiency biomass plants in Germany. In:
43. Benetto E, Popovici E-C, Rousseaux P,
PowerGen Europe Conference 2004; 2004.
Blondin J. Life cycle assessment of fossil
34. Dornburg V, Faaij APC. Efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction scenarios in coal-
economy of wood-fired biomass energy biomass based electricity production.
systems in relation to scale regarding heat Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:3053–74.
and power generation using combustion and
44. Berndes G, Azar C, Ka˚ berger T,
gasification technologies. Biomass
Abrahamson D. The feasibility of large-
Bioenergy 2001; 21:91– 108.
scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy
35. Sa´ez RM, Linares P, Leal J. Assessment of production. Biomass Bioenergy 2001;20:
the externalities of biomass energy, and a 371–83.
comparison of its full costs with coal.
45. Chum HL, Overend RP. Biomass and
Biomass Bioenergy 1998; 14:469 – 78.
renewable fuels. Fuel Process Technol
36. Hatje W, Ruhl M. Use of biomass for 2001;71: 187–95.
power- and heat-generation: possibilities and
46. Corti A, Lombardi L. Biomass integrated
limits. Ecol Eng 2000;16:41–9.
gasification combined cycle with reduced
37. Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment CO2 emissions: performance analysis and
of sustainability indicators for renewable life cycle assessment (LCA). Energy
energy technologies. Renew Sust Energy 2004;29: 2109–24.
Rev 2009;13 :1082–8.
47. Franco A, Giannini N. Perspectives for the
38. Caputo AC, Palumbo M, Pelagagge PM, use of biomass as fuel in combined cycle
Scacchia F. Economics of biomass energy power plants. Int J Therm Sci 2005;44: 163–
utilization in combustion and gasification 77.
plants: effects of logistic variables. Biomass
48. Gustavsson L. Energy efficiency and
Bioenergy 2005;28 :35–51.
competitiveness of biomass-based energy
39. Yoshida Y, Dowaki K, Matsumura Y, systems. Energy 1997; 22: 959–67.
Matsuhashi R, Li D, Ishitani H, et al.
49. la Cour Jansen J. Toxicity of wastewater
Comprehensive comparison of efficiency
generated from gasification of woodchips
and CO2 emissions between biomass energy
2003. Lunds Tekniska Hogskola Lunds
conversion technologies—position of
Universitet 2003.
supercritical water gasification in biomass
technologies. Biomass Bioenergy 50. McKendry P. Energy production from
2003;25:257–72. biomass. Part 2. Conversion technologies.
nBioresour Technol 2002;83:47–54.
40. Stucley CR, Schuck SM, Sims REH, Larsen
PL, Turvey ND, Marino BE. Biomass 51. Stahl K, Neergaard M. IGCC power plant
energy production in Australia: status, costs for biomass utilisation, Va¨rnamo, Sweden.
and opportunities for major technologies. Biomass Bioenergy 1998;15: 205–11.
Rural Industries Research and Development
52. World Energy Council. 2007 survey of
Corporation (RIRDC); 2004.
energy resources; 2007.
41. McIlveen-Wright DR, Williams BC,
McMullan JT. A re-appraisal of wood-fired 53. Vande Walle I, Van Camp N, Van de
combustion. Bioresour Technol Casteele L, Verheyen K, Lemeur R.
Shortrotation forestry of birch, maple,
2001;76:183–90.
poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium). II.
42. Ahrenfeldt J, Henriksen U, Jensen TK, Energy production and CO2 emission
Gobel B, Wiese L, Kather A, et al. reduction potential. Biomass Bioenergy
Validation of a continuous combined heat 2007;31: 276–83.
and power (CHP) operation of a two-stage
97
June 2013. Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN2305-8269
International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
© 2012 EAAS & ARF. All rights reserved
www.eaas-journal.org

54. Matthews RW. Modelling of energy and

carbon budgets of wood fuel coppice
systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2001; 21:1–19.
55. Lettens S, Muys B, Ceulemans R, Moons E,
Garcia J, Coppin P. Energy budget and
greenhouse gas balance evaluation of
sustainable coppice systems for electricity
production. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;
24:179–97.
56. Matthews R, Robertson K. Answers to ten
frequently asked questions about bioenergy,
carbon sinks and their role in global climate
change. Greenhouse Gas Balances of
Biomass and Bioenergy Systems; 2005 [IEA
Bioenergy Task 38].
57. Mann MK, Spath PA. Summary of life cycle
assessment studies conducted on biomass,
coal, and natural gas systems. In: Milestone
Report for the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Biomass Power Program Systems Analysis
Task Milestone Type C (Control); 2000.
58. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA.
Objective and subjective evaluation of
power plants and their non-radioactive
emissions using the analytic hierarchy
process. Energy Policy 2007; 35: 4027–38.
59. Norton B. Renewable electricity—what is
the true cost? Power Eng J 1999;13:6–12.
60. Styles D, Jones MB. Energy crops in
Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle
greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop
electricity. Biomass Bioenergy 2007;31:
759–72.
61. Wihersaari M. Greenhouse gas emissions
from final harvest fuel chip production in
Finland. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28: 435–
43.
62. Balat M. Electricity from worldwide energy
sources. Energy Source Part B 2006;1: 395–
412.
63. Edmonds J, Wise M, Dooley J, Kim S,
Smith S, Runci P, et al. Global energy
technology strategy—addressing climate
change. Battelle Memorial Institute; 2007.
64. St Clair S, Hillier J, Smith P. Estimating the
pre-harvest greenhouse gas costs of energy
crop production. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;32: 442–52
98