Feasibility Study Project for the JCM (2015FY)

A Survey on Feasibility of Torrefaction System

using Biomass in Indonesia

March, 2016

Japan Coal Energy Center

Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc.

YAMATO SANKO MFG. CO., LTD.

This report summarizes the results of A Survey on Feasibility of Torrefaction System using

Biomass in Indonesia, a feasibility study conducted by Japan Coal Energy Center (a general

incorporated association), Mizuho Information & Research Institute and Yamato Sanko Mfg.

Co., Ltd. for the Ministry of Economy, Technology and Industry for its Feasibility Study

Project for the JCM, 2015FY.

1. General information

1.1 State of energy generation

The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) of Indonesia, one of the

governmental agencies responsible for Indonesia’s electricity sector, supervises PLN and

regulates the natural resources and energy sector as a whole. PLN is a national electricity

corporation owned and managed by a ministry responsible for government-owned

companies. PLN was the sole entity responsible for the generation, transmission and supply

of electricity in Indonesia until 1992 when the Independent Power Producer (IPP) system

was introduced. In addition, the Private Power Utility (PPU) system was introduced under

the Electricity Act of 2009 (Act No. 30 in 2009 commonly known as the New Electricity Act).

The PPU system created a new channel for retailing electricity directly to consumers.

Currently PLN accounts for a little over 80% of capacity. Private electricity companies

(under IPP or PPU) and independent power producers make up the rest.

IPP companies are required to obtain a license to run a power generation business under

the New Electricity Act Art.19 (2). They must sell all the electricity they generate to PLN

under long-term contracts typically for 25 years with PLN. Priority negotiating rights to

this Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with PLN are acquired through bids invited by PLN.

They are not allowed to sell electricity to the consumers by the condition mentioned above

that they must sell all the electricity generated by them to PLN.

PPU companies are required to obtain a license to run a power generation business just like

IPP companies. They can sell electricity to PLN only if PLN needs it. Business areas called

Wilayah Usaha (WU) can be allocated to them in which they can generate, distribute,

supply and retail electricity in an integrated manner, or supply and/or retail electricity. An

agreement from PLN and a permission from MEMR are necessary to obtain a WU.

Indonesia will need a total of 59.5 GW of additional power generation and supply to meet

the rising demand for power as its economy grows. PLN’s power distribution business plan

(RUPTL) indicates that PLN and IPP companies will develop a power supply of 16.9 GW

(28%) and 25.5 GW (43%) respectively. For the rest of 17.1 GW (29%), however, no

developers or investors have been found yet. With regards to the types of power plants, it is

planned that new coal-fired power generation will account for 37.9 GW (63.8% of the total).

In July 2015, taking into consideration Indonesia’s overall energy policies, the Directorate

General of Electricity of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources published a draft

version of the National General Plan on Electricity (RUKN 2015-2034) as a general

electricity development plan, which seemed to be in line with a plan the President of

Indonesia announced in May 2015 to construct new power plants with a total capacity of 35

GW.

1.2 State of biomass power generation

Although biomass consumption in Indonesia grew 0.33% between 2000 and 2012, its

contribution to the energy mix constantly decreased in the same period. Indonesia’s biomass

energy generation capacity is about 50,000 MWe, but the actual electricity generated using

biomass and supplied to PLN is 200 MWe, which is only 0.4% of the capacity.

The Feed-in Tariff system (FIT system) for biomass power generation was established by

Ordinance No.27/2014 of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). This

system is revised when required.

1.3 Trends in biomass fuel policies

Policies to promote the use of biomass for energy generation have been adopted including

the Renewable Energy Purchase System (established on June 2, 2012 to be applied to

bioenergy, hydropower, etc.) and laws and orders that promote renewable energy (President

Order No.1/2006 and Ordinance No.32/2008 of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral

Resources for promotion of generation and use of bioenergy).

In 2006, the government introduced, as a biofuel blending mandate, B5 (a diesel oil mixture

which contains 5% biodiesel) and E5 (a gasoline mixture which contains 5% bioethanol)

under President Orders No.5/2006 and No.1/2006. In addition, they started to introduce

B7.5 which contains 7.5% biodiesel as a fuel for transportation in 2012, increased the

blending ratio of biodiesel to 10%, and directed the power plants to increase the ratio to 20%

in 2014. In January 2016, a directive was issued to introduce a B20 mandate.

In February 2015, the government announced an increase in biofuel subsidy to protect

domestic biofuel producers, which they expect to give domestic producers a compensation

for an increasing price gap between regular diesel and biodiesel caused by the plunge in oil

prices all over the world.

The government made the use of bioethanol and biodiesel mandatory and established a

subsidy system to encourage investments to biofuels. It is not clear, however, how the

government will enforce the mandate, which makes it unclear if this incentive will actually

achieve the objective.

Pertamina, a state-owned corporation, developed a biodiesel for transportation in 2006.

Others including private companies started to produce biodiesel in 2005. As of 2014, the

biodiesel industry as a whole has a capacity of 5.4 million KL, but its operating rate is not

high.

MEMR encourages the industry to expand the current production capacity of 5.87 billion

liters in view of a future shortage in biodiesel supply they predict to occur in 2016 and

thereafter if the new biofuel mandate program proves a success. The steep growth in

biodiesel production has exceeded the rate of growth in general consumption and export in

Indonesia. It resulted in a buildup of biodiesel between 2010 and 2013, which is expected to

increase further.

1.4 State of the palm oil industry

Indonesia and Malaysia together account for about 85 to 90% of world palm oil production.

Indonesia is currently the largest palm oil producing and exporting country in the world. In

2011 Indonesia accounted for 48.79% of world crude palm oil production. It produced 28

million tons in 2012.

Palm oil is ranked 3rd in export in Indonesia. The acreage allocated for palm oil production

accounts for 31.6% of the total arid area. The area of palm plantations, which is now 8

million hectares, is expected to expand to 13 million hectares by 2020.

Almost 70% of Indonesia’s palm plantations is located on the island of Sumatra, with the

rest of 30% is located on the island of Kalimantan. About 40% of Indonesia’s palm-related

companies and nearly 500 plants are located in Sumatra.

Almost the same amount of empty fruit bunch (EFB) as palm oil is yielded as a waste. But

large companies use EFB as a fertilizer. In addition, it is expected that about 10 million

tons/year of EFB coming out from palm oil press mills operated by middle-to-small

companies can be used as fuel.

2. EFB torrefaction experimentation

2.1 Method

A taco rotary dryer owned by Yamato Sanko was used for these EFB torrefaction tests. This

model provides efficient drying and torrefaction. It also allows processing at a temperature

close to that of exhaust boiler gas observed at palm factories. The EFB sample used in these

tests was sent from Indonesia. A test using wood chips was conducted before the EFB

torrefaction tests to confirm the proper functioning of the machine and set conditions for

the experiment. Since the size of the EFB sample sent from Indonesia was not appropriate

to feed the machine, we adjusted its size using scissors and simple cutting machines before

the experiment. The machine used in these tests for torrefaction was a rotary drum (model’s

code at Yamato Sanko is TRD-03) that was 0.5 m in diameter, 1.5 m in length and 0.3 m3 in

volume. LPG was used as the heat source. The feed rate was 24 kg/h, 20 kg/h, 16 kg/h or 10

kg/h. The feed rate was inversely proportional to the residence time of EFB in the dryer. We

observed how the properties of the torrefied sample changed. The inlet and outlet

temperatures were 250 – 280 °C and 180 – 190 °C respectively. The EFB torrefaction tests

were conducted in the temperature range in which the sample temperature was about

130 °C. Usually the atmospheric oxygen concentration in torrefaction tests needs to be

decreased as EFB is dried to such a low moisture content that there is a risk of spontaneous

combustion. In our tests we decreased the oxygen concentration by spraying the inside of

the circulating duct with water to increase the humidity, which created a wet gas

atmosphere containing less oxygen. When we accidentally fed large-size empty fruit

bunches early in the experiment, we observed that processed materials were tangled to each

other to make a net-like formation. This observation made us realize that selecting the right

type of crusher which is used before drying would play a very important role in making

plans for operational machines.

2.2 Analysis

The torrefied EFB was analyzed based on JIS for coals. The analysis included total moisture,

proximate analysis (ash, volatiles and fixed carbon), element analysis (total sulfur, carbon,

hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, total chlorine), lower heating value, ash components (SiO2,

Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, P2O5, Na2O, K2O, V2O5, TiO2, Mn3O4, SO3), TG

(thermogravimetry in nitrogen), HGI (hardgrove grindability index), and ash melting point

(95% coal + 5% torrefied EFB and 90% coal + 10% torrefied EFB). The major results are

summarized below.

The TG values of EFB indicate a 42.3% decrease in weight caused by dehydration up

to 120 °C. Little change in weight was observed from that temperature up to 240 °C.

Again a steep decrease in weight (31.1%) was observed between 240 and 360 °C. This

temperature range seems to be the range in which torrefaction occurs. The weight

gradually decreased after that up to 1,000 °C, reaching a total 88.4% decrease in weight

at 1,000 °C.

Since no major changes were observed in volatiles in the EFB feed before torrefaction

and the processed EFB in every run, it is expected that EFB can be further torrefied by

adjusting the temperature and residence time.

The higher heating value of the EFB feed was approximately 1,900 kcal/kg. In

comparison, the average higher heating value after torrefaction of 4 runs was 4,620

kcal/kg. This result indicates that mainly dehydration occurred in the process.

The ash melting points of the coal-torrefied EFB blend (blending ratios were 5% and

10%) were 1,350 – 1,420 °C. The data indicates the risk of ash adhesion inside the dryer

caused by potassium is low.

Estimate of costs associated with the implementation of the torrefaction equipment

Components needed to build the torrefaction equipment must be purchased and/or made in

Indonesia as much as possible to reduce the initial cost. We have been introduced to only a

few potential contractors during this feasibility study.

One of the machines which would play an important role is the crusher that cuts EFB into

fragments of suitable sizes before feeding it to the dryer. Given the fact that maintenance

work would be required because of blade wear and replacement, a local contractor who has

experience with EFB crushing must be selected.

The current estimated cost is 500 – 700 million yen per line (FFB 22.5t/h → EFB 5.2t/h)

including a pelletizer. A further research is required since this price varies a lot depending

on the assembly site (i.e. Indonesia or Japan).

3. Policy recommendation on the JCM in Indonesia

3.1 Introduction of a Feed-In Tariff for coal and biomass co-combustion power plant

With respect to middle-to-small sized (less than 10MW) biomass-only power companies, the

state-owned power corporation PLN is mandated to purchase electricity from them, and the

feed-in tariff system (FIT) has been set for these companies.

On the other hand, coal and biomass co-firing is not included in the FIT system. Preferential

treatments such as fixed preferential prices are not applied to them.

We described and recommended an FIT system shown below which is similar to the fixed

price purchase system for biomass power generation in Japan to the officials of the Ministry

of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia, and received an answer that they will

consider an FIT system for coal and biomass co-firing if a coal and biomass co-firing power

generation business will be started in the future.

Table 3.1.1 Overview of the Feed-In Tariff for Biomass Power Plant in Japan

(Tariff for FY 2015（per 1kWh）)

Biomass

Forest thinnings listing,

sawdust,

bark, etc/

agricultural

residues

Construction

wood waste

Paper, food

residues,

sludge, Black

liquor, etc

～2MW 2MW～

FIT Tariff(JPY) 40+TAX 32+ TAX 24+ TAX 13+ TAX 17+ TAX

FIT Term 20 years

（Source: Agency for Natural Resources and Energy of Japan）

3.2 The Quality Standard for Biomass fuel in relation to the solid biomass fuel combustion

in the coal boiler

There might be some concerns that the biomass co-combustion possibly has a bad effect on

the coal boiler especially from the point of view of the noncombustible mineral content. We

propose Indonesian government (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources Republik and

BPPT) provide a biomass quality standard for power companies to relieve the above

concerns as described below.

Figure 3.2.1 Image of the Quality Standard for Biomass fuel

Torrefied EFB unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 ・・・

Dimension mm *** ・・・

Moisture content % ●% ○% ●●% ○○% ・・・

grindability μm ・・・

Ash content w-% dry ≦△△ △△≦▲▲ ▲▲≦◇◇ ◇◇≦ ・・・

Nitrogen w-% dry ― ― ≦ 1.0 ≦ 2.0 ・・・

Chlorine w-% dry ― ― ≦ 0.1 ≦ 0.2 ・・・

Arsenic mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 4.0 ≦ 8.0 ・・・

Chrome mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 40 ≦ 80 ・・・

Copper mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 30 ≦ 60 ・・・

Torrefied EFB unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 ・・・

Dimension mm *** ・・・

Moisture content % ●% ○% ●●% ○○% ・・・

grindability μm ・・・

Ash content w-% dry ≦△△ △△≦▲▲ ▲▲≦◇◇ ◇◇≦ ・・・

Nitrogen w-% dry ― ― ≦ 1.0 ≦ 2.0 ・・・

Chlorine w-% dry ― ― ≦ 0.1 ≦ 0.2 ・・・

Arsenic mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 4.0 ≦ 8.0 ・・・

Chrome mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 40 ≦ 80 ・・・

Copper mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 30 ≦ 60 ・・・

Torrefied EFB unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 ・・・

Dimension mm *** ・・・

Moisture content % ●% ○% ●●% ○○% ・・・

grindability μm ・・・

Ash content w-% dry ≦△△ △△≦▲▲ ▲▲≦◇◇ ◇◇≦ ・・・

Nitrogen w-% dry ― ― ≦ 1.0 ≦ 2.0 ・・・

Chlorine w-% dry ― ― ≦ 0.1 ≦ 0.2 ・・・

Arsenic mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 4.0 ≦ 8.0 ・・・

Chrome mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 40 ≦ 80 ・・・

Copper mg/kg dry ― ― ≦ 30 ≦ 60 ・・・

Physical

characteristics

Chemical

characteristics

Wood chip

PKS

3.3 Business plan for EFB torrefaction fuel

Our proposal on the scale and flow of power generation and sales of a potential EFB

torrefaction fuel business is described below.

Figure 3.3.1 Flow of power generation and sales

With respect to the business plan, cost and revenue information currently assumed or

acquired is summarized below.

JCM Project Boundary EFB (51,000 t/y)

Electricity (1045kW), waste heat EFB crushing and drying (25,500t/y)

Torrefied EFB (12,000 t/h)

Biomass power

generation (2MW) EFB torrefaction

Steam (0.3t/h)

Torrefied EFB pellet production

Transport by sea

Transport by land

Palm oil production

Pulverized coal-fired power generation (Japan)

Dried EFB (14,700 t/y) Dried EFB (10,800 t/y)

Pulverized coal-fired power generation (Indonesia)

Electricity (235kW)

Table 3.3.1 Equipment Installation Cost

Initial investment cost item Cost Note

EFB crusher 320,000(thousand yen) In case the equipments are

procured from Japan. Cost

reduction by procuring locally

will be studied.

EFB dryer 220,000(thousand yen) In case the equipments are

procured from Japan. Cost

reduction by manufacturing

locally will be studied.

EFB torrefaction machine 120,000(thousand yen)

Pelletizer 105,000(thousand yen) In case the equipment is

procured from Japan. Cost

reduction by procuring locally

will be studied.

Civil engineering and

construction work

50,000(thousand yen)

Other 40,000(thousand yen) Design, transport by sea

Total 855,000(thousand yen)

Table 3.3.2 Running and Maintenance/Management Cost

Running cost item Cost Note

EFB crusher Maintenance 47,000,000(yen) Blade exchange

Electricity 0(yen)

EFB dryer Maintenance 6,600,000(yen) 3% of EFB dryer

Electricity 0(yen)

EFB torrefaction machine Maintenance 3,600,000(yen) 3% of torrefaction

machine

Fuel 6,000,000(yen)

Electricity 0(yen)

Pelletizer Maintenance 14,000,000(yen) Reserve for Blade

exchange and

pelletizing

Electricity 0(yen)

Transport by land (unit price) 0.32(yen/t)

Transport by sea (unit price) 2.5(yen/t･km)

Labor

2,700,000(yen)

300 days/year,

2 shifts/day x 3

persons = 6

persons hired

Table 3.3.3 Revenue

EFB torrefied pellet buyer Expected price Note

Domestic (Indonesia) 60,000,000(yen) 12,000(t)x 5,000yen

Japan 240,000,000(yen) 12,000(t)x 20,000 yen

Table 3.3.4 Tax

Item Tax rate Note

Machinery import duty 5% Tax rate for dryer and Pelletizer

Biomass fuel export duty 15%

Value-added tax 10%

Corporate tax 25% The regulation below may be applied.

“A renewable energy investor is eligible

for net income reduction by 5 per cent of

the investment value each year, over a

six-year period (Ministry of Finance

Regulation No. 21/2010).”

Our business scheme proposal on a torrefied EFB manufacturing and sales business is

shown below.

Figure 3.3.2 Project scheme

4. Study on the MRV methodology and estimation of the emission reductions

4.1 Study on the applicable MRV methodology

The CDM methodologies in relation to this project are as follows.

“Avoided emissions from biomass wastes through use as feed stock in pulp and paper,

cardboard, fibreboard or bio-oil production”（AM0057）

“Co-firing of biomass residues for heat generation and/or electricity generation in

grid connected power plants”（ACM 0020）

“Production of biodiesel for use as fuel”（ACM0017）

The draft JCM methodologies for this project was studied based on the AM0058.

Investment

〇A torrefaction facility will be

constructed at the HASNUR

Corp’s palm oil press mill site

〇EFB torrefaction and pellet

manufacturing

〇Sales of torrefied EFB to power

generators

Specific Purpose Company (SPC)

HASNUR Corp and

Other investors

HASNUR Corp

Palm oil plant

Supply of

EFB

Coal-fired power

plant (Pulverized

coal-fired)

Yamato Sanko and local company

Construction contract, maintenance contract

Supply of

torrefied

EFB

(1) Eligibility criteria

The draft Eligibility criteria and intendment of the each criteria are described in the table

below.

Table 4.1.1 Draft Eligibility criteria and intendment of the each criteria

No Eligibility criteria Intendment of the criteria

1

The project activity is the construction of a new

torrefaction/carbonization plant that uses

agricultural wastes as feedstock;

Clarification of the targeting project.

Application of the correspondent

criterion of AM0057 with modification.

2

The torrefaction/carbonization plant is

constructed within the same site of the

agriculture processing plant which produces

feedstock to the torrefaction/carbonization.

Simplificaton of the project by

eliminating the transportation of

biomass residues. Newly added.

3

The waste should not be stored in conditions that

would lead to anaerobic decomposition and,

hence, generation of CH4;

To avoid generating CH4. Application of

the correspondent criterion of AM0057.

4

Emission reductions are only claimed for

avoidance of methane emissions when it can be

demonstrated that the agricultural residues are

left to decompose anaerobically;

Clarification of the emission reduction

mechanism. Application of the

correspondent criterion of AM0057.

5

In case the biomass is combusted for the purpose

of providing heat or electricity to the plant, the

biomass fuel is derived from biomass residues

To avoid leakage(CO2,N2O emissions

from cultivation etc.) from biomass use

when the biomass is combusted for

heat/electricity produce. Application of

the correspondent criterion of AM0057.

6

The pyrolysed offgas and residues (char) will be

further combusted and the energy derived thereof

used in the project activity. The residual waste

from this process does not contain more than 1%

residual carbon.

To reduce GHG emissions from off-gas

and waste emitted during the pyrolysis

process. Application of the

correspondent criterion of AM0057 with

modification.

7 All of the Torrefacttion/Carbonization

agricultural wastes are sold as fuels

Simplificaton of the project by

eliminating the transportation of waste

from the plant. Newly added.

(2)Boundary

The boundary is described as follows.

Figure 4.1.1 Spatial extent of the boundary

Table 4.1.2 Summary of the source and GHG included in the boundary

Source CO2 CH4 N2O

Reference

Scenario

Emission from decomposition of

agricultural waste at the landfill site No Yes No

Project

Activity

Emission from onsite use of fossil fuels Yes No No

Emission from onsite use of electricity Yes No No

Emission of GHG in the off-gas from

the pyrolysis process No No Yes

(3) Reference emissions

Reference emissions are calculated according to the formula which is the same as the

one provided as baseline emissions calculation in the CDM methodology AM0057.

REy = RECH4,SWDS,y

Where,

REy = Reference emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr)

RECH4,SWDS,y = Methane emissions avoided during the year y

RECH4,SWDS,y is calculated according to the formula defined in the CDM methodological

tool “Emission from solid waste disposal sites v 07.0” as follows.

𝑅𝐸𝐶𝐻4,𝑆𝑊𝐷𝑆,𝑦 = 𝜑𝑦 × (1 − 𝑓𝑦) × 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 × (1 − 𝑂𝑋) ×16

12× 𝐹 ×𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑓,𝑦 ×𝑀𝐶𝐹𝑦 ×

∑𝑦𝑥=1 ∑𝑗 (𝑊𝑗,𝑥 × 𝐷𝑂𝐶𝑗 × 𝑒−𝑘𝑗×(𝑦−𝑥) × (1 − 𝑒−𝑘𝑗))

Where,

RECH4,SWDS,y = Reference methane occurring in year Y generated from waste

disposal at a SWDS during a time period ending in year Y

x = Years in the time period in which waste is disposed at the SWDS,

extending from the first year in the time period(x=1) to year y(x=y)

y = Year of the crediting period for which methane emissions are

calculated

j = Type of residual waste or types of waste in the MSW

Wj,x = Amount of organic waste type j disposed/prevented from disposal in

the SWDS in the year x (t)

The each parameter is set as described in the table below based on the CDM

methodological tool “Emission from solid waste disposal sites v 07.0”

Table 4.1.3 Parameter for the calculation of the reference emissions

Parameters Value Remarks

φ 0.85

Default value for the model correction factor to account for model

uncertainties.

0.85 for Application A and Humid/wet conditions is applied

GWP-CH4 25 Default Value

OX 0.1 Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS

that is oxidized in the soil or other material covering the waste)

F 0.5 Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)

DOCj 0.2 Fraction of degradable organic carbon in the waste type j (weight

fraction) 0.2 for Garden, yard and park waste is applied

DOCf,y 0.5

Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that decomposes

under the specific conditions occurring in the SWDS for year y

(weight fraction)

MCFy 0.4

Methane correction factor for year y. 0.4 for unmanaged-shallow

solid waste disposal sites or stockpiles that are considered SWDS

is applied.

Kj 0.17

Decay rate for the waste type j. In the case of EFB, as their

characteristics are similar to garden waste, the parameter values

correspondent of garden waste(0.17) shall be used.

(4)Project emissions

Project emission are calculated according the formula below which is modified based on

the formula for project emission calculation in the CDM methodology AM0057 by

deleting the emissions from the biomass and waste transportation

PEy = PEFC, j,y + PEEC,y +PEPy,,y

Where,

PEy = Project emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEFC,j,y = Project emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y

(tCO2/yr)

PEEC,y = Project emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity during

the year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEPy,y = Project emissions in the off-gas from the pyrolysis process in year y (tCO2e)

4.2 Calculation result for estimation of the emission reductions

Table 4.2.1 Calculation result for estimation of the emission reductions

Year Total Reference

Emissions,

RE

Total Project

Emissions,

PE

Emissions

Reduction,

ER

(t CO2e) (t CO2e) (t CO2e)

1 4,066 2,884 1,182

2 7,497 2,884 4,612

3 10,391 2,884 7,507

4 12,833 2,884 9,948

5 14,893 2,884 12,008

6 16,631 2,884 13,746

7 18,097 2,884 15,213

8 19,334 2,884 16,450

9 20,378 2,884 17,493

10 21,258 2,884 18,374

Total 145,379 28,845 116,534

Decade

Average 14,538 2,884 11,653