scaling up biomass gasifier use - world...

C L I M A T E C H A N G E S E R I E S

Scaling UpBiomass Gasifier UseApplications, Barriersand Interventions

Debyani GhoshAmbuj SagarV. V. N. Kishore

PAPER NO. 103

November 2004

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Administrator

30892

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The useand citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank. Copies are available from the Environment Department of the World Bank by calling 202-473-3641.

Scaling up BiomassGasifier Use:Applications, Barriersand Interventions

Debyani Ghosh†

Ambuj Sagar†

V. V. N. Kishore§

† Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program Belfer Centerfor Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment Harvard University

§ Biomass Energy Technology ApplicationsThe Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) andTERI School for Advanced Studies

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

November 2004

Environment Department Papersii

Scaling up Biomass Gasifier Use: Applications, Barriers and InterventionThe International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Manufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing November 2004

iiiClimate Change Series

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

Chapter 1Biomass gasification for rural development 1

Chapter 2Development and Dissemination of Biomass Gasifiers in India 7

Chapter 3Barriers For Scaling-up 13

Technology/product development and production 13Information and awareness 14Experimentation and learning 15Actor linkages and interaction 16Economic and financing issues 17Policy issues 18

Chapter 4Mainstreaming Biomass Gasifiers 21

Gasifier technology development and deployment 21Selection criteria and other issues for scaling up 25Scaling-up in various applications and contexts 27Systems-level issues for scale-up 36

Chapter 5Conclusion 53

Annexure 1Biomass Gasification: A Technology Primer-cum-Glossary 55

Annexure 2Selected aspects of the Indian experience 63

Environment Department Papersiv

Scaling up Biomass Gasifier Use: Applications, Barriers and Intervention

Annexure 3Economic and financial analyses 87

Annexure 4List of people interviewed 105

REFERENCES 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY 111

vClimate Change Series

Acknowledgements

This paper draws, in part, on research carriedout under the Energy Technology InnovationProject in the Science, Technology, and PublicPolicy Program at the Belfer Center for Scienceand International Affairs, Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University, with supportfrom the Energy Foundation, the Heinz FamilyFoundation, the William and Flora HewlettFoundation, the David and Lucile PackardFoundation, and the Winslow Foundation.

We would like to thank the numerousresearchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in

India (listed in Annexure 4) who freely sharedinformation as well as their views and insightsduring the course of interviews with them. Wealso benefited significantly from commentsreceived during a presentation at the WorldBank of a preliminary version of this work.Finally, we would like to thank Ajay Mathur forhis numerous suggestions, comments, and otherhelpful inputs that have added greatly to thispaper. Of course, the final responsibility for thedocument, and the interpretations offeredtherein, lies with us.

Environment Department Papersvi


viiClimate Change Series

Executive Summary

Biomass resources account for about 11% of theglobal primary energy supply (Goldemberg,2000)—their contribution is even greater, andhence particularly important, in developingcountries (Reddy, 2000). But biomass utilizationin these countries generally takes place with alow end-use efficiency, often in ruralhouseholds, informal small-scale or even smalland medium enterprises in the organizedsectors. Additionally, biomass can be used forproviding modern energy services for basicneeds and productive applications in areas thatare lacking these, but this aspect of biomass usehas not been tapped much yet. Gasifiertechnologies offer the possibility of convertingbiomass into producer gas, an energy carrier,which can then be burnt for delivering heat orelectrical power in an efficient manner (Karthaand Larson, 2000). While this approach couldmake a contribution to helping solve the energyproblem in developing countries, such potentialcan be meaningfully realized only with thelarge-scale deployment of biomass gasifier-based energy systems (GESs). This has nothappened yet.

This report explores the reasons for the lack ofscale-up, using India—a country with a long-standing and extensive gasifier developmentand dissemination program—as a case study.Then, drawing on the Indian experience andlessons from it, it discusses in detail variousissues that are of particular relevance to scaling

up gasifiers-based energy systems. It alsoproposes specific applications and contexts inwhich it might be particularly fruitful toexplore large-scale deployment of such energysystems, and ways in which this might bedone.

In India, work on gasifiers for energyapplications started in the early 1980s. Theseefforts received a boost with the Department ofNon-conventional Energy Sources’ (DNES, nowa ministry, MNES) dissemination program thatwas initiated in 1987. While this subsidy-basedprogram was successful in placing about 1200gasifier systems for irrigation pumping in thefield, most of these units were non-operationalsoon after for a host of reasons (technical,inappropriate subsidy structure, etc.). Themodified government policies introduced in the1990s attempted to correct the shortcomings ofthe previous program, most notably bychanging the subsidy structure, not restrictingthe applications eligible for subsidies, and byinstituting a certification regime for gasifiers.This allowed for dissemination of a significantnumber of gasifiers (~600) for a range ofapplications, building on continuing researchand development efforts (although there is notmuch data on the field performance of these).At the same time, the emergence of variousmanufacturers and entrepreneurs outside theMNES program also assisted in furthercommercial dissemination of gasifiers (~400).

viii


Environment Department Papers

Despite all this, though, large-scale gasifierdeployment has still not taken off in India.

The fact that scale-up did not take placeautomatically even in cases where gasifiers areeconomically clearly feasible indicates that thereare a number of issues to be considered andbarriers to be overcome for successful large-scale deployment. Broadly speaking, from theIndian experience, we can classify these as: lackof information and awareness about gasifierpotential, economics, and technologies; need forfurther evolution of gasifier and othercomponents’ technologies (including those forsystem automation) in order to make GESsrobust and user friendly; limited manufacturingcapabilities; inadequate coordination betweenvarious actors; absence of institutionalstructures to facilitate gasifier deploymentamong poorer and non-skilled users (i.e.,unorganized, small-scale firms, rural areas); andlack of systematic programs targeted towardsscale-up. Especially important is the fact thatthe particulars of implementing gasifier-basedenergy systems depend on the kind ofapplication and context; therefore the approachhas to be tailored to the specific application –this impedes the potential success of any singleapproach to scale-up.

A possible approach to mainstream gasifiers,and one that we suggest here, is based on aselection of certain target applications as areasof initial focus. This group can be identified byscreening on the basis of certain criteria toensure the potential and feasibility of scale-up.We suggest that the criteria on the basis ofwhich to select candidate applications include:

• availability of technology;

• economic feasibility (in relation to currentsituation and other options);

• clear and significant benefits (economic,social, or environmental);

• possibility of utilizing economies of scale(production, delivery of systems/services);

• availability of biomass supply;

• demonstration of potential for institutionalstructures to deliver, operate, and maintainthese energy systems;

• ability to build on existing experienceswith applications as well as institutionalmodels.

Once these target applications have beenselected, then each element of the technologydevelopment and deployment process will needto be considered in the context of that particularapplication with a view towards tailoring theapproach so as to take into account thespecificities of that context and to maximize thechances of successful large-scale deployment.Thus we would need to:

• identify technology performance anddesign parameters to ensure that thegasifier-based system can meet the needs ofthe application and also promotestandardization where possible;

• evaluate manufacturing options (especiallyso as to gain benefits from volumemanufacturing);

• Examine product deployment issues,including product supply channels,technology options assessment capability ofusers, product operation and maintenanceneeds, and availability of financing;

• assess biomass supply linkages.

ix

Executive Summary

Climate Change Series

In applications where the target group (i.e., thebeneficiaries) does not have the skills andresources to deploy gasifier-based energysystems, intermediary actors such asentrepreneurs, NGOs or self-help groups arelikely to be required to facilitate the deploymentprocess (as is financing to overcome the lack ofready capital among such actors).

On the basis of these criteria, we suggest fourcategories of applications that might serve assuitable starting points for a program aimed atscaling up gasifier use. These categories are:

• small enterprises in the informal sector thatneed process heat for their operations(examples include silk reelers, textiledyeing, agro-processors)

• small and medium enterprises that havehigh requirements for process heat (such asceramics firms, chemicals manufacturers,brick kilns)

• captive power generation in enterprises thatproduce excess biomass as a result of theiroperations (e.g., rice mills, sugarcaneprocessors, corn processors)

• rural areas that have access to limited or nomodern energy services, and where gasifier-based energy systems can play a role inhelping satisfy basic needs as well asproviding economic opportunities throughthe provision of electric power as well asprocess heat. The two main sub-categories

here are rural remote areas where the GES isused to provide power and other energyservices to individual villages (or smallclusters) that are not connected to thepower grid, and grid-interfacedapplications where the proximity to thepower grid allows for feeding of excesspower into the grid.

In addition, some ‘systems’-level interventions(such as setting up an information andawareness program, performance testingfacilities, strengthening actor interactions andnetworks, coordinating and an effort forsystematic learning from field experiences) willalso be required. Mechanisms for continuousfeedback and learning from field experiencesare also critical

Keeping all of this in mind, perhaps the mostfruitful scale-up strategy would be one thatinitially focuses on pure thermal productiveapplications. These could be taken up in theshort-term, given their economic and financialfeasibility and only minor needs for technologydevelopment. At the same time, a sequencedapproach could be followed for powergeneration applications. Here, selected pilottransactions could be initiated with a view topromoting appropriate technology and productdevelopment and also provide learning abouthow to best incorporate such efforts intoexisting institutional structures for electricityprovision. As successful products andinstitutional delivery models emerge, scale-upwould follow for such applications.

x



Application

Small andmediumenterprises

Provide process heat to substitute liquidfuels or inefficient biomass combustion

Minor technology/product development;involve mid-to-large manufacturers;train financiers;help develop biomass markets

Provide power to replace grid power orliquid-fuel-based power

Technology/product development; involvemid-to-large manufacturers; train financiers;help develop biomass markets

Informalenterprises

Provide process heat to substitute liquidfuels or inefficient biomass combustion

Minor technology/product development;technology standardization and/or opentechnology;involve mid-to-large manufacturers andsmall-scale manufacturers; promoteentrepreneurs as ESCOs;train financiers;provide favorable financing for capital costsand working capital

Captivepower

Utilize excess/waste biomass to generateelectricity to replace grid power

Technology/product development; involvelarge manufacturers;train financiers

Rural Provide modern energy services to remotevillages for social and human development

Minor technology/product development;product standardization and/or opentechnology;involve mid-to-large manufacturers andsmall-scale manufacturers; promote NGOsand other orgns. as ESCOs;provide subsidies for capital costs;favorable financing for working capital

Provide modern energy services to villagesfor social and human development; replace/augment grid power

Technology/product development;involve large-scale manufacturers promoteNGOs and other organizations as ESCOs;provide subsidies for capital costs;

Objective Interventions

favorable financing for working capital

1Climate Change Series

Biomass gasificationfor rural development

Biomass energy sources currently contributeabout 11% of the global primary energy supply(Goldemberg, 2000). Their role in developingcountry energy supplies is particularly impor-tant—for example, in the Indian case, it is esti-mated that such sources account for about 34 to41% of the country’s primary energy supply(Reddy, 2000.). The large size of the biomassresource base—comparable in magnitude toother fossil fuel resources such as coal (see Table1, for example)—and its renewable nature willlikely ensure a continuing place of prominencein the future energy supplies, especially as cli-mate change concerns become more pressing.

Most biomass utilization, however, in develop-ing countries occurs with a low end-use efficien-cy. For example, traditional cooking stoves inrural areas have an energy efficiency of about10% (Smith, 2002). While no systematic studieshave been undertaken to measure end-use effi-ciencies of energy use in small, unorganizedindustries (or even formal small and mediumenterprises (SMEs)), available data for somecategories of industries in India indicates effi-ciencies comparable to those in traditionalstoves (Sarvekshana, 1995) (see Table 2). Thenumber of such enterprises is enormous (seeTable 3) and hence the total scale of inefficientbiomass use, and the resulting environmental,economic, social, and health consequences, is acause of great concern.1 Furthermore, thereremain many areas in most developing coun-tries that are in urgent need of access to modern

energy services—such energy services contrib-ute directly to human development by helpingprovide basic amenities such as lighting andwater (Reddy, et. al., 1997). They can also con-tribute to economic and social development byopening possibilities for a range of productiveapplications such as micro-enterprises, coldstorage, irrigation, etc. Delivering modern ener-gy services to such areas while utilizing localbiomass resources would be a highly desirablesolution to this rural energy problem.

Modern biomass energy conversion technolo-gies like gasification allow for substantial im-provements in overall energy efficiency besidesoffering flexibility of use and significant envi-ronmental and health benefits (Johansson, et.al., 2002). The biomass gasification processyields producer gas, an energy carrier that canbe burnt relatively easily and can therefore beexploited for generation of electrical power andprocess heat. Hence the gasification route offersa direct approach to utilize biomass in a man-ner that helps meet not only basic needs suchas lighting and water, but also underpins arange of productive applications that providelivelihoods. This route can help in achievingend-use efficiencies of about 35–40% for heat

1 Recent data also suggests that products of incom-plete combustion (PICs) that result from inefficientcombustion of biomass can have significant green-house gas potential (Smith et al., 2000).

1

2



utilization compared to about 10% for tradi-tional devices (Kartha & Larson, 2000). Further-more, realizing such levels of efficiencies on theground can save wood, which is equivalent tofresh afforestation (one ton of firewood is ap-proximately equivalent to one average tree).Conversely, the biomass ‘released’ throughsuch efficiency-improving technologies can beused to provide additional energy services.Hence, if suitably used, biomass gasifiers canplay a substantial positive role in improvinghuman development in developing countries,especially in rural areas, while utilizing localresources in an efficient and environmentallyfriendly manner.

As a consequence, over the last two decades,there have been efforts in many countries toexplore the implementation of gasifiers in anumber of applications and contexts. There hasbeen considerable research on, and evolution,in gasifier designs with a concomitant increasein the ability to utilize a greater range of biom-ass feedstocks. There have been a number ofdemonstration and implementation efforts thathave begun to yield a wealth of experience thatin turn are leading to a refinement of the think-ing on how to make further progress on thisfront.

Ultimately, though perhaps the most importantaspect of any contemplation of efforts to realizethe potential role of biomass gasifiers in contrib-uting to development in any meaningful man-ner is the “scale” issue. To put it simply, thistechnology will make any significant contribu-tion to the enormous energy problem in devel-oping countries only through large-scaledeployment. Only if the dissemination and useof gasifiers can be scaled up, can they be consid-ered to be successful contributors to economicand social development in developing coun-tries. This has not happened so far for a varietyof reasons.

This report aims to highlight the various appli-cations and contexts in which biomass gasifica-tion may be successfully utilized at a large scale.It also discusses the various dimensions thatneed to be considered in scaling up deploymentin any of these categories, and suggests possibleapproaches that might be particularly promis-ing. The analysis in this report builds on theexperience and lessons from the substantialefforts in India on biomass gasifier developmentand dissemination over the last two decades. Italso explicitly takes a systems perspective inanalyzing the Indian case as well as possibleways forward in order to mainstream gasifieruse in developing countries.

3

Biomass Gasification for Rural Development


Commercial energy Bioenergy

Mtoe MT Mtoe

Primary energy Fuelwood1 220 103.4

Coal & lignite Fuelwood in villageindustries 20.0 9.4

Production 315.7 MT 127.7 Other biomass2 160 56.0

Imports 15.64 MT 10.2 Potential gas fromorganic residues3 36.8 16.6

Oil

Production 32.72 MT 32.7

Imports 39.81 MT 39.8

Gas

Production 27.4 (bcm) 23.5

Imports — —

Hydro 82,619 GWh 23.74

Nuclear 11,987 GWh 3.34

Secondary energy (all imported)

LPG 1.53 MT 1.7

Naphtha 0.42 MT 0.5

Kerosene 5.82 MT 6.1

HSD 10.5 MT 10.9

Fuel oil 0.51 MT 0.5

Total 280.5 185.41 Currently collected from forests, private lands, and community lands etc. primarily for cooking.2 Does not include biomass used as fodder3 Consists of biogas obtainable from cattle dung, municipal wastes and organic industrial effluents. Energy content of cattle dung would behigher, but as it is used also as a fertilizer, only energy extractable in the form of gas without affecting the fertilizer value is considered here.4 Million tons of oil replaced, assuring a conversion efficiency of 30%. Mtoe will be 7.1 for hydro and 1.0 for nuclear, but will not representthe true contribution from these sources.Source: TEDDY, 2000.

Table 1: Bioresource base of India in comparison with commercial energy (1998–99 data)

4



Table 2: Biomass using industries/enterprises in India

Industry Specific fuelwood Total firewood consumptionconsumption (approximate) per annum – estimated

Halwai (khoya making etc.) — Not known

Distilleries — —

Lime making 0.34 kg/kg limestone Not known

Surkhi 0.1 kg/kg dry clay Not known

Khandsari units — —

Brick making 8–10 kg/100 bricks Not known

Roof tile making — —

Potteries 0.5–1.5 kg/kg final product Not known

Extraction of animal tallow 6 kg/kg tallow Not known

Beedi manufacture — Not known

Coconut oil production 0.075 kg/kg oil Not known

Rice par-boiling 0.1 kg/kg raw paddy Not known

Hotels, hostels etc. — Not known

Preparation of plaster of Paris Not known Not known

Charcoal making 4 kg/kg charcoal Not known

Tyre retreading Not known Not known

Soap manufacture 250–300 kg/batch of 400–500 kg Not known

Paper/paperboard products Not known Not known

Rubber sheet smoking 1 kg/kg fresh latex Not known

Ceramic industry — —

Refractories — —

Bakeries 0.7 kg/kg of output Not known

Vanaspati ghee 0.67 kg/kg ghee 0.63 million tons

Foundries — 45,000 tons

Fabric printing 0.2 kg/m of cloth 1.72 million tons

Road tarring 23 ton/km 370,000 tons

Fish smoking — 20,000 tons

Tobacco leaf curing* 4–10 kg/kg cured tobacco 438,000 tons annually (43,000 tobaccobarns in Karnataka, over 60,000

units in Andhra Pradesh)

(continued on next page)

5

Biomass Gasification for Rural Development


Table 2: Biomass using industries/enterprises in India (continued)

Industry Specific fuelwood Total firewood consumptionconsumption (approximate) per annum – estimated

Tea drying 1.0 kg/kg dry tea 0.25 million tons annually

Cardamom curing — 75,000 tons annually

Silk reeling 17–25 kg/kg silk yarn 220,000 tons annually(25,000 cottage/filature units &

33,000 charka reeling units)

Silk dyeing 3–4 kg/kg of silk processed

Cotton dyeing 1 kg/kg of material processed (1000 cotton processing unitsin Tiruppur cluster, numbers

in other places is not available)

Puffed rice making 0.75 kg/kg of paddy processed 120,000 tons of paddy huskannually in Karnataka state alone

(5,500 in Karnataka)

Lead recycling

Cremations 300 kg/body ~ 1.7 million tons* Firewood is used predominantly in barns in Karnataka, while in Andhra Pradesh, mainly coal is being used.Sources: FAO field document no. 18; TERI, 1994; Surveys conducted by TERI.

Table 3: Summary of unorganized enterprises in India for reference years 1990 and 1995

1990 1995

Number of enterprises (millions) 15.35 14.5

Per enterprises expenses on fuel (Rs./year) 876 629

Per enterprise expense on electricity (Rs./year) 845 3566

Per enterprise expenses on fuel and electricity (Rs./year) 1721 5195

Per enterprise expenses on inputs (Rs./year) 40460 94208

Enterprise located in rural areas (%) 75.83 72.37

Enterprise located in urban areas (%) 24.17 27.63

Enterprise that do not consume energy (millions) 10.29 NA

Number of enterprises consuming energy (millions) 5.06 NA

Number of enterprises consuming firewood (millions) 1.40 NA

Number of enterprises consuming charcoal (millions) 0.42 NA

Number of enterprises consuming biomass fuels (millions) 1.82 NA

Note: Rs. 48 ~ US $1Source: 45th and 51st rounds of survey of unorganized manufacturing sector (Sarvekshana, 1995)

6




The development and dissemination of modernbiomass gasifiers in India began in the early1980s. During this period, a number of researchinstitutions commenced efforts to examine dif-ferent aspects of biomass gasifier use as well asto develop indigenous gasifiers and gasifier-based energy systems (GESs). Much of the ini-tial work centered on small wood-basedgasifiers that would be useful for applicationssuch as powering irrigation pumpsets. Thisfocus was motivated by the thinking within theDepartment of Non-conventional Energy Sourc-es (DNES) that it would be beneficial to utilizerenewable energy sources to provide power forirrigation pumping3—even at that time, Indiahad about half a million diesel pumpsets forirrigation.

The earliest of these efforts began with somework by a French couple, Vincent and Marie-Sabine D’Amour at the Jyoti Solar Energy Re-search Institute (JSERI) in Gujarat. JSERI hadbeen established by Jyoti Ltd., an industrialhouse, to develop renewable energy technolo-gies. After some experimentation, JSERI re-searchers developed a 5-horsepower (hp)gasifier that was suitable for coupling to a die-sel engine that in turn could power irrigationpumpsets. The design and drawings for thisdesign belonged to Jyoti Ltd., and the firm,through its energy division, started manufactur-ing these gasifiers. (In 1984, JSERI became anautonomous, not-for-profit organization thatwas funded in part by the government. It also

changed its name to the Sardar Patel RenewableEnergy Research Institute (SPRERI).) Dr. B.C.Jain who headed the energy division at Jyoti leftin 1986 to start his own firm, Ankur ScientificEnergy Technologies, Ltd., to focus on the de-velopment, manufacture, and popularization ofbiomass gasifiers and solar hot water systems.

A number of other institutions also started workon gasifiers in the early 1980s. The effort onbiomass gasifiers at the Indian Institute of Sci-ence, Bangalore (IISc) was initiated in 1981 byDr. H.S. Mukunda and Dr. U. Shrinivasa withfinancial support from the Karnataka StateCouncil for Science and Technology. The re-search was catalyzed by the work done at theSolar Energy Research Institute (SERI) in theU.S., and the initial focus was to study andmodify the SERI design for a 5 hp gasifier forcoupling with an internal combustion enginefor power generation. Researchers from the TataEnergy Research Institute (TERI) were firsttrained on gasifiers at JSERI in 1982. Eventually,researchers at TERI’s Field Research Unit, thenat Pondicherry, constructed a 5 hp gasifier by

Development and Disseminationof Biomass Gasifiers in India2

2 Unless otherwise mentioned, information in thischapter is derived from authors’ own knowledge andexperiences, interviews with researchers, practitionersand policy-makers (see Annexure 4), internal docu-ments and in-house publications of organizations, andweb-based information.3 Some attempts to develop solar-thermal-poweredpumpsets were already under way.

2

8



1984. This effort was funded by TERI, with theinstitute providing the hardware components aswell as manpower. A group at the Indian Insti-tute of Technology (IIT)-Bombay led by Dr. P.P.Parikh began initially with a collection and re-view of the gasification literature. Later, realiz-ing the need for appropriate testing facilities tosupport the nascent gasifier efforts in the coun-try, the IIT-Bombay group also set up a testinglaboratory with DNES funding. Work on biom-ass characterization was initiated at IIT-Delhi.Other institutes such as Punjab AgriculturalUniversity, Ludhiana, and Nimbkar Agricultur-al Research Institute, Phaltan, also started workon biomass gasification.

In addition to supporting research and testing,DNES was also organizing R&D meetings thatbrought together the small number of seniorresearchers on this topic. All of these activitiesserved as the backdrop for the first major initia-tive under the Biomass Gasifiers Programmelaunched by the DNES in 1987.4 This initiativewas intended to give an impetus to biomassgasification efforts in the country by demon-strating a large number of small-scale gasifiersin rural areas. It was expected that this wouldalso yield valuable experience and feedback forimproving future technologies and programs.The effort focused on systems for irrigationpumping and power generation, with theformer application utilizing gasifiers of 5 and 10hp and the latter application focusing on 30 to100 kW. A generous subsidy was provided forthis scheme—the cost borne by the users wasonly between 20 to 50% of the total capital costof the system (the highest subsidy being forirrigation pumpset application).

The DNES identified six manufacturers as po-tential suppliers under this program but onlythree of these eventually supplied gasifiers.5

These were: Ankur (with its own design), M&MEngineers and Fabricators (using the designlicensed from Prof. Mukunda’s group at IISc),and Associated Engineering Works (AEW) (us-ing design licensed from SPRERI in Gujarat).These early examples of transfer of technologyfrom research institutions to manufacturersheralded a trend that continues until thepresent.

The scheme was quite successful in placinggasifiers in the field – over a thousand systemswere disseminated with an overwhelming frac-tion being those for powering irrigationpumpsets. But subsequent surveys found thatmost of the systems did not operate for longdurations for a number of reasons includingmaterials and other technical problems andpoor maintenance (Chakravarthy et. al., 1991).For example, IISc estimates that the 250 unitsbased on its design which were disseminatedthrough this scheme ran for an average of 160hours per unit (Mukunda et al.). In fact, thesubsidies on the gasifier-diesel engine combina-tion were so high that the cost to the user of theentire system was much smaller than the priceof the diesel engine alone, and therefore themain motivation for many purchasers was toget a cheap diesel engine.6

4 This followed other major renewables efforts suchas the National Programme on Biogas Development,the National Program on Improved Chulhas, etc.5 Stirling engine systems were also developed at thistime for utilizing biomass in a Stirling cycle to gener-ate power but these were not very widely dissemi-nated, in part because of their high cost6 At that time, diesel prices were controlled, and main-tained at a low level, by the government through theAdministrative Pricing Mechanism. This allowed theeconomics of diesel-based generation to be quite fa-vorable.

9

Development and Dissemination of Biomass Gasifiers in India


At the same time, the DNES also funded a num-ber of individual demonstration projects such asa biomass-gasifier-based electricity generationplant in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. Italso funded a series of National Biomass Gasifi-er Meets, starting with the first one in 1987 atSPRERI in Vallabh Vidyanagar. These meetingswere useful in bringing together various re-searchers and discussing technical as well asother issues relevant to biomass gasifier devel-opment and dissemination.

After the rather unsuccessful experience of thefirst initiative, the dissemination regime forpromoting gasifiers was revised in the early1990s. Subsidy levels were substantially low-ered and set as fixed amounts that varied bygasifier ratings and applications (rather thanpercentages of the capital cost, as earlier). Fur-thermore, diesel engines were not subsidizedany more, thus eliminating the most egregiousdistortion in the previous scheme. The govern-ment also widened the applications that wouldreceive subsidies. The need for rigorous testingto avoid misuse of subsidy and ensure adequategasifier performance had also been realized.Therefore, the government now required manu-facturers to obtain a certification for their equip-ment. Any R&D institution working on gasifierswas allowed to undertake the testing and certi-fication of gasifiers.

At the same time, the commercial feasibilityof gasifiers for thermal applications was alsobeing demonstrated. The combination of themodified subsidy program and the emergenceof commercial opportunities provided a boostto gasifier development and deployment inIndia.

As a result, there has been substantial activity ina number of research institutions aimed at vari-

ous scientific and technical aspects of gasifierdesign. This includes efforts directed at:

• utilizing various kinds of biomass in gasifi-ers such as rice husk, sugarcane waste, andmustard stalks. There were also efforts touse biomass in powdery and briquettedform to improve the feasibility of gasifyinga range of feedstocks.

• developing and incorporating technicalimprovements to improve performance,robustness, as well as lifetimes of gasifiers.

• meeting different thermal productive appli-cations such as drying of agricultural prod-ucts (cardamom, tea, rubber, marigold, etc.),brick processing, silk reeling, textile dyeing,chemicals processing and institutional cook-ing. (Kishore et. al., 2001)

• enhancing gasifier-based electrical genera-tion. This required improving the quality ofgas being produced (especially in terms ofparticulate and tar content). It also requiredmodifying diesel engines and developingcontrol systems to improve the effectivenessof coupling these engines and gasifiers.There were also some efforts at modifyinggasifiers and engines so as to have 100%-producer-gas-based power generation sys-tems (as opposed to the traditionalduel-fuel operation).

• scaling-up gasifiers to large sizes for boththermal and electrical applications. Gasifi-ers up to 500 kW for electrical applications,and equivalent sizes for thermal applica-tions, are now available.

The institutional landscape has also evolvedsomewhat over the years. While the major R&D

10



institutions that had begun work on gasifiers inthe early 1980s continue to be active in the area,only a few other R&D actors have emergedsubsequently, and only with the help of govern-ment support. There are, though, now a largenumber of gasifier manufacturers in the coun-try.7 These can generally be classified into twocategories: those that license technology fromresearch institutions and those that have devel-oped their own technologies. Notably, most ofthese manufacturers operate at a small scale,selling about 10–20 gasifiers a year. Ankur, thelargest of the Indian gasifier manufacturers, hasinstalled since its inception (or is in the processof installing) gasifiers totaling about 20 MW ofelectrical and thermal-equivalent capacity.8 (SeeAnnex 3 for a detailed description of the activi-ties of some of the major gasifier developmentand/or deployment institutions.)

The Ministry of non-Conventional EnergySources (MNES, the successor to DNES) re-mains the main funder of gasifier R&D in thecountry and deployment through its subsidyprogram. Until recently, it also supported activ-ities at the various institutions designated asthe gasifier action research programs (GARPs).But a number of other actors have also startedplaying a role in funding and catalyzing gasifi-er-related activities in the country. On the pub-lic-sector side, these include state nodalagencies such as the Renewable Energy Devel-opment Agencies of West Bengal (WBREDA),Gujarat (GEDA) and Orissa (OREDA). Somedonor agencies have also supported specificgasifier development and dissemination activi-ties—for example, the Swiss Agency for Devel-opment and Cooperation (SDC) has providedsupport for the development of gasifiers forsilk reeling and cardamon drying enterprises.DESI Power has been supported, among others,by the Shell Foundation, FREND (a Swiss

Foundation), and the Government of the Neth-erlands.

By now, gasifiers have found utility in a rangeof industries and applications (see Table 4)across the country through numerous demon-stration projects and commercialization activi-ties. Over 1800 gasifiers have been installedunder the MNES subsidy programs (MNES,2002), and an estimated 400 additional gasifiershave been installed outside the subsidy re-gime9 . (Annex 4 describes a number of casestudies of gasifier implementation.) There hasalso been the emergence of several small-scaleentrepreneurs who are trying to manufactureand/or install gasifiers on a purely commercialbasis (since only the manufacturers that havereceived certification are eligible for subsidies).Partly as a result of this situation, there is alarge variation in performance of systems, capi-tal costs, and maintenance requirements. In fact,it is likely that many of the claims of gasifiermanufacturers/installers may not stand thescrutiny of a rigorous field evaluation but thereis a complete lack of systematic data-gatheringabout experiences with, and performance of,installed systems. And despite the significantexperience with gasifiers in the country, therereally has been no significant scale-up in theirdeployment.

7 These include: Ankur (Baroda), AEW (Tanuku, AP),Chanderpur Works (Haryana), Cosmo (Raipur), FiguEngineering Works (Gangtok), Grain Processing Indus-tries (Calcutta), Netpro (Bangalore), Paramount Enviro-energy (Kottayam), Radhe Industries (Rajkot), Silktex(Bangalore), Vijay Engineering (Bangalore), 3M Indus-tries (Mumbai). (Source: MNES, 2001 and authors’knowledge)8 Based on interviews with personnel at Ankur (seeAnnexure 4).9 Based on authors’ own knowledge.

11

Development and Dissemination of Biomass Gasifiers in India


What is it that explains the evolution and struc-tural features of this landscape? The significantprogress in gasifier technologies and the con-comitant augmentation of the installed baseacross various applications result from the long-term involvement and commitment of key tech-nical personnel and institutions in gasifierdevelopment and deployment. This has alsorequired long-term and consistent support fromthe MNES. The fact that research institutionshave been also involved in product develop-ment and dissemination has been helpful in theimprovement of the technologies. But in manycases, this may also impede appropriate prod-uct10 design and development since these activ-ities are not necessarily their core competence.Furthermore, while there are a number of actorsin the area, interactions between them are onlylimited – for example, collaborations betweenR&D institutions are almost non-existent, andonly in a few cases are there relationships be-tween manufacturers and R&D institutions. Thelack of efforts to learn systematically from fieldexperiences has constrained the ability to im-prove gasifier-based systems and make themmore robust. This, coupled with the absence ofdissemination of information and awarenessabout gasifier utilization and performance invarious applications, as well as the lack of de-velopment of technical standards for gasifiers,

has led to lack of user confidence in these sys-tems and hampered their dissemination.

While the government has been instrumental inthe development and dissemination of gasifiertechnology in the country, it does not have poli-cies specifically designed to promote large-scaledeployment. While its programs have beensuccessful at adding to the installed gasifiercapacity in the country, this has happened bysimple replication of demonstration or small-scale activities rather than by the emergence ofdifferent modes of industrial organization (forexample, mass production by a few manufac-turers instead of craft production by manysmall manufacturers) required to move fromsmall-scale to large-scale deployment. The lackof efforts to experiment with, and promote,innovative institutional models to overcomeexisting barriers to deployment in particularapplications has also constrained the uptake ofgasifiers.

10 We differentiate here between ‘technology’ and‘products.’ The ‘technology’ is the basic design of thegasifier while the ‘product’ is the manufactured gas-ifier and the other components that together consti-tute the system that delivers the required energy ser-vices to the user (Sagar and Mathur 2001).

12




This chapter presents and discusses some of themain categories of barriers that seem to havehindered biomass gasifier deployment in theIndian context. It should be noted that this isnot a comprehensive list but rather one thattouches upon particularly important issues.Many of these barriers will also be relevant inother developing countries.

Technology/product developmentand production

Feedstock utilization

Gasification technology to utilize a variety ofagricultural wastes (such as mustard stalk,groundnut shells, and corncobs) is still notavailable, although there are ongoing efforts forutilizing a number of feedstocks. Even in caseswhere gasifier technology has been deployed,there may still remain some questions aboutfield performance—for example, our interviewswith stakeholder indicated some concerns aboutrice-husk-based gasifiers. Development of feed-stock processing techniques such as briquettingand pelletisation will enable a variety of agro-residue utilization but these face technical andeconomic barriers at present.12

Downscaling of gasifiers sizes

While there has been a major effort over thepast two decades to develop large gasifier sizes

that can take advantage of economies of scale inenergy service delivery, there remains a need forsmall gasifiers that can be utilized in applica-tions where the loads are smaller, particularly inrural areas and in informal enterprises.

Gas cleaning/cooling

This is of concern for power applications. Largegasifier units (beyond 100 kW) are generallylinked to turbo-charged/after cooled dieselengines. The turbocharger requires very highquality producer gas and there are significantconcerns about present gas quality not beingcompatible for such applications.

Engine development

Technical barriers exist in conversion and modi-fications of diesel engines to 100% producer gasmode, especially more so because of the reluc-tance of engine suppliers to collaborate withgasifier manufacturers in these developmental

Barriers for Scaling-up11

11 Information in this chapter is primarily based oninterviews with researchers, practitioners and policy-makers (see Annexure 4).12 For briquetting, there are uncertainties with respectto behavior of briquettes under high temperature andhigh wear and tear of machines that result in high re-placement costs. Alternate processing techniques suchas pelletisation are emerging but there are further de-velopment needs.

3

14



efforts. The former perceive high technical risksand therefore do not provide performance war-ranties for engines coupled to gasifiers. Naturalgas engine modifications to run on producergas involve high costs and large capacity derat-ing that effectively raises costs. Besides, naturalgas engines are not readily available, especiallyin small capacities, as there are only a few sup-pliers.

System automation

Process control and automation in gasifiersystems (with respect to feedstock processingand feed charging, change over from dieselonly to dual-fuel mode, etc.) has not been ade-quately developed. While there are cost barriersto the development of such technologies, theywould be extremely useful in applicationswhere the personnel costs contribute signifi-cantly to the operating expenses. Such sys-tems would be more appropriate in industrialapplications where skilled personnel are avail-able rather than in rural/remote area applica-tions.

Manufacturing capabilities

Despite the production and dissemination of asubstantial number of gasifiers, manufacturingcapabilities in this area remain very limited.Many of the gasifier manufacturers are mainlysmall workshops or fabricators that producegasifiers in a manner akin to craft production.Thus the increase in the gasifier installed capac-ity has come about mostly through replicationof the small-manufacturing model rather than ashift to mass production techniques within largeengineering firms that can then take advantageof economies of scale as well as learning fromproduction.

Information and awareness

Technology/product selection

In the present Indian situation, information onproduct specifications (technical specifications,performance parameters, O&M procedures) aswell as prices offered by different technologysuppliers is not available in public domain—this impedes competitive and fair selection oftechnology suppliers by users. May actors alsoexpress a concern for technology selection oftenbeing driven not by technology competitivenessbut rather by informal alliances between manu-facturers and project promoters.

Technology/product operation

Information with respect to feedstock specifica-tions and characteristics as well as the variety offeedstock compatible with gasifier design isoften not available to the user from the technol-ogy supplier—this adversely impacts systemperformance. For example, the user is oftenonly aware of the moisture content control inthe feedstock, but unaware of other specifica-tions such as the wood characteristics (e.g.,presence of bark) that influence operation. Us-ers also encounter problems in feedstock pro-cessing (due to rigid specifications by sometechnology suppliers) and feed charging opera-tions (cases of manual charging). O&M difficul-ties also arise in gas cleaning/coolingcomponents (problems in manual recycling ofthe sand filter). Often, users do not have suffi-cient technical knowledge and information onthe technology and often place demands on thesystem incompatible with design and operatingprocedures. Problems also arise due to users notbeing adequately trained to handle system op-eration and maintenance procedures that oftenlead to over-dependence on the technical back-

15

Barriers for Scaling-up


up13 unit for undertaking these activities.There are also no performance benchmarks orcompilation of best operating procedures andpractices. Operating manuals are often incom-prehensible to users as they are written in En-glish instead of in local languages.

Difficulties also arise in judging system perfor-mance, as there is little emphasis on measure-ment and record keeping of performanceparameters. In the absence of systematic meth-ods for performance measurement and verifica-tion, there exist gaps between performanceclaims by manufacturers and those perceivedby the user—this adversely affects user confi-dence.

Application scope and benefits

Information dissemination efforts targeted atkey stakeholders to educate them about thescope of applications of gasifiers have beenrather limited. Even though experiences showthat thermal productive uses of gasifiers inindustries are commercially attractive, therehave been only a few systematic efforts to tar-get segments of potential beneficiaries in thisarea through information dissemination andawareness programs. Users may also perceiveuncertainties in technological performance andpotential adverse impact on product qualityby a switch to gasifiers.14 Though some experi-ences show that user willingness for gasifierinstallation is linked to auxiliary benefits (espe-cially relevant in the context of gasifier applica-tions in industries) such as impact on plantproductivity and product quality, the technolo-gy supplier often does not have this informa-tion available to convince the user. Prospectiveusers are also often unaware of overall poten-tial benefits. Information and awareness onbiomass-based technologies among intermedi-

ary stakeholders such as NGOs, industrygroups, and micro-finance institutions is alsolimited. The awareness level among policymakers is also perceived to be low, which attimes lead to greater emphasis on other renew-able technologies such as solar photovoltaicsand wind.

Experimentation and learning

Experimentation with delivery models

Since the dissemination of gasifiers has beendominated by a few major actors, the generaltrend has been towards replication of specificmodels followed by these actors. This has in-cluded deployment of gasifiers for power andthermal applications in small and mediumenterprises (SMEs) taking advantage of gov-ernment subsidies, for rural electrification ingovernment-sponsored demonstration projects,as well as for applications in informal enter-prises and SMEs on a purely commercial basis.There have been some efforts to experimentwith energy service company (ESCO)-like de-livery models and with cluster-based ap-proaches but these have been few and farbetween, and have not been undertaken on anysystematic basis so as to build the foundationfor selecting among, improving upon, and dis-seminating these delivery models.

13 The technical back-up unit (TBU) is usually the tech-nology supplier or the state nodal agency. In some casesit may be the R&D institute.14 An example is the case of gasifier installation in asteel re-rolling mill – the mill owner perceived that thefurnace temperature after gasifier installation wouldnot be sufficient for his operations and affect productquality. Systematic trials and measurements wereneeded to convince the user.

16



Learning from experiences

Performance of systems operating in field arerarely reviewed and monitored—in fact, thereare no institutional arrangements in place forindependent monitoring and evaluation ofgasifier performances in field.15 There is a lowlevel of feedback from prior projects due tonear-absence of relevant project experiencedocumentation. There are no systematic meth-ods for highlighting lessons from different ex-periences, and sharing of knowledge andexperiences through modes such as case studiesand discussions. Even for demonstrationprojects, there are no methods for informationdissemination on successes and failures. Thereare no institutional mechanisms for bringingstakeholders to a common forum for sharing ofexperiences. Learning from successful experi-mentations in market development strategies,which often have involved considerable effortsby technology supplier to convince user andgetting the first customer, are rarely disseminat-ed to facilitate future efforts. Similarly, experi-ence suggests that providing a secure fuelsupply to the user along with technologysupply has been a successful disseminationstrategy, but such practices are not being repli-cated.

Actor linkages and interaction

Biomass supply

The non-existence of a reliable and sustainablebiomass supply chain restricts deploymentand dissemination. There are no reliable fuelsupply, transportation and distribution linkag-es – for example, biomass fuel supply depotsdo not exist. In the absence of established coor-dination among different actors in the biomasssupply chain, gasifier users have to develop

their own supply linkages that adds to thetransaction costs of switching over to this tech-nology.

Technology/product innovation

There are no institutional mechanisms for inter-actions and networking among different stake-holders – while some government-initiatedefforts existed under GARP, with its dissolu-tion, no forum exists for interactions. There areisolated cases of initiatives being undertakenby certain stakeholders such as state nodalagencies, but no nationwide efforts exist. TheR&D efforts of different institutions have beenfragmented, without adequate sharing ofknowledge and experiences across the insti-tutes. There are also no systematic linkagesbetween R&D activities and field applica-tions—hence there are no institutionalized pro-cesses for feedback from field to R&D and viceversa. There are barriers to interactions amongkey stakeholders such as gasifier manufacturersand engine suppliers —gasifier manufacturersare often unwilling to share performance-relat-ed information with engine suppliers. Partici-pation is also hindered by high-risk perceptionsof engine suppliers. No mechanisms also existfor interactions between technology suppliersand users, nor is there any forum for interac-tions among users. While there are some inter-actions between policy-makers and selectedresearch institutions and manufacturers, thereare almost none between policy-makers andusers.

15 It is not even known how many of the gasifiersinstalled in the country remain functional. A surveyof gasifiers in a particular state indicates that veryfew installed systems were functional (Chakravarthy,1991).

17



Economic and financing issues

System costs

High system costs are driven by high capitalcosts and high costs of transportation in supply-ing the technology from manufacturing to usersite16 . Difficulties in capital access for usershinder adoption. There are concerns on eco-nomic viability of dual-fuel based operations,especially in the context of government disman-tling of the administrative pricing mechanismfor petroleum products in the country. The eco-nomic viability for power applications mayimprove with a shift from dual-fuel to 100%-producer-gas-based systems but there are highcosts associated with development of thesesystems related to engine redesign and modifi-cation, and derating in engine capacities thateffectively increases costs. In the context ofpower applications in rural areas, there are ad-verse impacts on plant economics by low-loadpatterns especially in the initial stages of aproject when load levels are low. There aretradeoffs between costs and performance im-provements in incorporating system automationand instrumentation—an increase in systemcosts due to automation make them unafford-able to certain user categories (such as remote/rural power applications), but may be morerelevant for industrial applications. But suchoptions have not been systematically explored.

Fuel costs

As a biomass supply market is non-existent,there are wide fluctuations in prices of biomassfuel (e.g., price of rice husk can vary between400 rupees per ton to 1200 rupees per ton)17 .This poses a high risk in setting up projectswithout reliable supply linkages. Furthermore,the long-term implications of large-scale gasifier

projects on local biomass prices is not well-studied.

Full-cost pricing

Economic assessment of alternate energy sup-ply options (conventional and non-conventionalsources) in evaluating technology choices rarelyadopt full-cost pricing techniques in terms offuel costs, pricing of equipment, setting up ofT&D networks, etc. Costs related to socio-envi-ronmental externalities are not internalized inassessing competitiveness among alternate tech-nology choices for delivering energy service—this restricts gasifier technology deployment.

Financing risk perceptions and transaction costs

Financial institutions often perceive high risks –technological and financial—for biomass gasifi-cation projects. The former is related to uncer-tainties in gasifier and/or system performancewhile the latter is related to uncertainties in therecovery of user charges in the absence of mech-anisms for securing recovery from users. Forfinancing gasifier projects, especially for SMEsor informal enterprises, the loan amounts need-ed by individual users are small—this renderstransaction costs disproportionately high. Thuspublic financial institutions existing in the coun-try for financing of renewable energy projectssuch as the Indian Renewable Energy Develop-ment Agency (IREDA) provides loans only toprojects requiring large investments. There is a

16 Very often there is a single manufacturing site for atechnology supplier, while the users may be dispersednationwide.17 Based on personal communication with IREDA of-ficial.

18



lack of initiatives in developing innovative mi-cro-financing mechanisms. For example, op-tions for setting up lending mechanisms to anumber of small-scale units forming a clusterwith large aggregate capacity have not beenadequately explored. Due to a dearth in re-source availability in the sector, some institu-tions are over-dependent on grants that may notbe sufficient for attracting qualified, dedicatedpersonnel for undertaking project development.Financing options from sources such as rural co-operative banks in providing soft loans to entre-preneurs have also not been well-explored.

There also remain structural difficulties in deliv-ery of finances. For example, captive powerplants such as rice mills may be potentiallyattractive for loan provision by IREDA. Butmost of these rice mills are proprietorships andIREDA is forbidden to provide loans to suchentities. Innovative financing mechanismsbased on setting up of an ESCO with sharing ofaccrued savings between the ESCO and thebeneficiary have not evolved (as has happenedin some other renewable energy applicationssuch as solar water heating systems).

Application-oriented financing packages

The financing of gasifier applications has overlyrelied on government subsidies and there havebeen little attempts to design financing packag-es suited towards different end-use applicationcategories. Even commercially viable applica-tions, such as gasifier use for productive appli-cations in industries, continue to draw ongovernment subsidies. Different financingmechanisms have not evolved for ‘socially-oriented’ projects (such as the ones for rural/remote area electrification) that have a strongercase for public support vis-à-vis commercialprojects (such as the ones for thermal produc-

tive uses or captive power generation in indus-tries).

Policy issues

Gasifier dissemination policy orientation

While the government program has reliedmainly on subsidies and an orientation towardstarget fulfillment, it has had little emphasis onperformance. Furthermore, the implementationof the government effort has not been driven byneed assessment and performance evaluation.In fact, there has been little emphasis on system-atic review of the program. There are also dis-tortions in subsidy policies in terms of thestructure and nature of subsidies. Some of thesearise due to subsidies being applicable even forcommercially viable applications of gasifierssuch as productive uses in industries and re-gion-wise (higher subsidy to locations in thenorth-eastern regions) and category-wise (high-er level of subsidy offered to consumer catego-ries belonging to certain socio-economic classes)classification of subsidies. Frequently changinggovernment policy guidelines with respect tosubsidies also results in awareness problemsamong users. The installations of systems areoften driven by subsidy motives and draw littlecommitment from users. There has been no shiftfrom capital subsidy to performance-based in-centives such as soft loans and tax credits.

There are also adverse impacts due to unevensupport to R&D institutions and sudden with-drawals in government support without alter-nate support in place. For example, after thedismantling of government support for GARPs,there remains no agency for testing and certifi-cation of gasifiers. There are uncertainties withrespect to resumption of these activities thatadversely affects dissemination.

19



Interface with other policies

Policy barriers exist with respect to supply anddistribution of electricity. For example, third-party sale of electricity by private power pro-ducers is not encouraged. There arenon-uniform policies across states with largefluctuations over time18 that pose high financ-ing risks.

Due to electricity tariff distortions across differ-ent categories of consumers, non-electrifiedvillages often choose to wait for grid electricitysupply over long periods of time as grid elec-tricity supply price would be very low —thisdiscourages setting up of decentralized powersystems. In fact, the general government ten-dency to provide subsidies to informal enter-prises and to the rural sector often acts as abarrier to the adoption of gasifiers where theactors may perceive forthcoming subsidies.

Power supply from decentralized sources isnot integrated within the reforms frameworkand finds no explicit mention in the recentpolicy document such as the Electricity Act200319 . Within the regulatory framework,regulatory interventions related to pricing ofenergy supply from decentralized sources arenot incorporated. Policy guidelines that inte-grate government’s target to electrify all theunelectrified villages with identification ofdecentralized supply options to fulfill thistarget remain limited.20

Integration of biomass-based energy projects(especially for rural/remote area electrificationprograms) with overall development policies ofthe government has not taken place and there islittle coordination of activities with other gov-ernment departments engaged in rural develop-ment programs.

Bureaucracy

The procedures for government subsidy ap-proval and disbursement are lengthy and cum-bersome that deters potential beneficiaries(although to be fair, this is not a particular prob-lem for the renewables areas only). A bottom-upstructure exists related to project developmentand implementation that leads to high cost andtime overruns due to factors such as proceduralbottlenecks and approval needs from multipleagencies.

18 In the states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, forexample, wheeling charges were increased steeplywithin a short period, making several renewable en-ergy projects unprofitable.19 Ministry of Power, Government of India, website.(http://powermin.nic.in)20 Some initiatives are being taken under the recentlyannounced Rural Electricity Supply Technology (REST)mission of the Government of India. (http://powermin.nic.in)

20




The Indian experience has shown the tremen-dous potential of biomass gasifiers in providingthermal and electrical energy services for a vari-ety of applications in a developing country. Butthe experience has also revealed the varioushurdles on the path to widespread deploymentof this technology.

Hence efforts to scale up and mainstream theuse of biomass gasifiers for providing energyservices in developing countries will need toemploy a systematic approach to build on pastlessons and avoid potential pitfalls. This shouldinclude an examination of specific aspects of thetechnology development and deployment pro-cess as it relates to gasifiers. It should also focuson selected applications that seem to show thegreatest potential for large-scale gasifier deploy-ment in terms of technical, economic, and finan-cial feasibility as well as social, economic, andenvironmental benefits.

Gasifier technology development anddeployment

Successful technology dissemination is the out-come of an iterative process that begins with aninitial assessment of user needs and resources.Such an assessment needs to underpin the de-velopment of the product aimed at satisfyingthe needs of the consumers. But the process ofthe product development itself generally in-volves several revisions as tests on prototypes

in the laboratory and in the field yield dataabout technical and economic performanceduring operation—such information is valuablein making improvements to the product andevaluating its viability. Often these tests alsoinvolve getting feedback from users on theproduct’s fit with their needs. As the evolutionof the product design moves it closer to themanufacturing stage, industrial design issuessuch as manufacturability and ergonomics alsoneed to be considered, as also do aspects suchas appearance that may play a significant role inproduct marketing. In fact, issues such as pric-ing, sales strategies, and distribution channelsneed to be resolved even before any commercialproduction can commence—all of this is re-quired to ensure delivery to, and uptake by,users. Given the specificity of user needs inmany cases, the product may need to be cus-tomized in order to deliver the appropriate levelof service desired by the consumers. Of course,suitable maintenance plays a critical role incontinued satisfactory operation during productuse. Valuable lessons and insights about theproduct design are invariably gained during itsuse (as well from the manufacturing stage, of-ten)—these, in turn, can assist in the refinementof the product. Figure 1 shows, in a stylized andsimplified fashion, this chain of activities. Asmentioned earlier, it is imperative to think ofthis technology development and deploymentprocess not as a linear or sequential set of activi-ties but as a recursive process with close linkag-

MainstreamingBiomass Gasifiers4

22



es between the different stages. Mainstreaminga technology requires paying attention to eachof these elements.

In the particular case of gasifier-based energysystems (GESs), some aspects of this processrequire further discussion.

Technology development

While much work has been done on the devel-opment of gasifier technologies aimed at utiliz-ing a number of biomass feedstocks for differentapplications, there are still major gaps that re-main. There can be classified into three catego-ries:

• A ‘technology’ gap: Despite much progressover the last few decades, there remains aneed for developing gasifiers that can suc-cessfully and effectively utilize agriculturalwastes such as coconut shells. Economicalbiomass processing technologies could alsoassist in the utilization of a greater range offeedstocks. The development of small androbust gasifiers is particularly critical forrural and informal enterprise applications.The development of a robust 100% produc-er gas engine also stands as a barrier to theimplementation of gasifiers in electricalpower generation in contexts where the useof diesel in not possible or desirable forduel-fuel applications. Improvements ininstrumentation and control systems willalso greatly assist in better operation andmaintenance of GES.

• An ‘assessment’ gap: A number of designsthat have been utilized in various demon-stration or commercial projects around theworld. While there is consensus on somedesign elements of gasifiers for specific

feedstocks and/or applications, there hasbeen no systematic effort at validating theperformance claims of the various designsand carrying out a comparative assessmentof various gasifier and energy systems’designs to reach consensus on technicalchoices which would help in streamline thefuture design process.

• A ‘design’ gap: While a number of gasifierdesigns have been developed by differentinstitutions, their manufacture has beenmostly in small numbers for scattered appli-cations. This has precluded a unified at-tempt to design gasifiers with somemodularity in mind, i.e., developing a basicdesign with different modules designed fordifferent applications. For example, the ashremoval system varies from feedstock tofeedstock. Some kinds of biomass require asimple shaking grate, others may requirespeedier removal of ash and yet othersmight require some modifications to helpbreak up clinkers. It should be possible todesign a gasifier body such that an ash re-moval system appropriate for a particularbiomass can be inserted during the fabrica-tion and assembly process. Similarly someergonomic features may also be built intodesigns in order to improve their operabili-ty and user-friendliness.

Customization vs. standardization

The gasifier is not an ‘energy technology’ thatstands on its own. That is to say, a gasifier byitself does not deliver any service of value to itsconsumers. It has to be combined with othercomponents or elements in order for it to beuseful. For example, when a gasifier is coupledto a burner and oven, it can provide processheat. If one wants to use the gasifier to deliver

23

Mainstreaming Biomass Gasifiers


electrical power, then the gas output needs to becleaned and cooled down before it is fed into adiesel engine that provides the mechanical pow-er than in turn drives an electric generator.Hence all of these components, various cou-pling elements such as tubes and wires, andassociated instrumentation and control equip-ment work together as an ‘energy system’ thatallows the conversion biomass into a form ofenergy that is useful to the consumer, i.e., elec-trical power. Thus even though gasifier can beconsidered the ‘core technology,’ other compo-nents are also needed in order to produce anenergy system that fulfills user requirements.

Given that the needs of different consumers areoften different, the design and characteristics ofthe energy system may vary somewhat (or evensubstantially) from customer to customer, evenif the same gasifier is used. And in many cases,the gasifier itself may require substantial modi-fications in order to suit it to the local feedstockcharacteristics. Therefore, even though the gas-ifier is a relatively simple ‘core technology,’ theeffectiveness of its utility for any particularapplication and context depends on the designof the gasifier being tailored to the availablebiomass resource and on the customization ofthe overall energy system.

Clearly, the greater the availability of gasifierdesigns, the greater the possibility of using dif-ferent kinds of biomass resources and hence thegreater the potential for widespread use ofGESs. At the same time, for scaling up the de-ployment of any technological system, it is pref-erable that it be standardized to the extentpossible and manufactured in large volumes fora number of reasons:

• this reduces costs by taking advantages ofeconomies of scale and by strengthening‘learning’ effects;21

• it facilitates quality control and hence im-proves the quality of the product;

• standardization of ‘core technologies’ suchas gasifiers as well as components aids inthe design of energy systems for variousapplications by setting forth well-definedperformance characteristics and parameters;

• standardization also promotes easier andbroader dissemination of information aboutthe technologies and makes it easier to op-erate, maintain, and repair them.

In the case of GESs, there is the additional issueof standardizing gasifier designs vs. standardiz-ing the full energy system. The latter approachwould obviously allow full reaping of the bene-fits of standardization and volume-productionbut reduce the flexibility in utilizing the systemsfor a range of applications. The former ap-proach would allow customization of the ener-gy system built around standard gasifierdesigns and hence would allow greater dissemi-nation of these systems. In some cases, dissemi-nation of the GES could be promoted by makingavailable detailed technology blueprints to anyinterested manufacturer22 — in such a case, thetechnology and product development will needto be funded by an institution that retains the

21 The costs of new technologies generally reduce withincreasing production and market experience. In fact,empirical data shows that the total cost reductions ofnew technologies are related to their cumulative pro-duction, with the relationship between the two oftenreferred to as “learning curves” (on a log-log plot, thisappears as a linear relationship). This “learning” andconcomitant reduction in cost can come from improve-ments in manufacturing techniques and processes aswell as in product design that result from the experi-ence gained by a firm (or industry, through spillovereffects) as it engages in the production of these tech-nologies.

24



right to make the designs public rather thanletting them remain proprietary. Individualmanufacturers could make additional modifica-tions, if they so desire, but the basic design fea-tures would remain the same. This can have acouple of advantages: it eliminates the transac-tion costs of licensing proprietary designs; italso reduces the uncertainties that both smallmanufacturers and users might have while as-sessing competing designs. The latter issue isparticularly important since these actors gener-ally do not have the technology options assess-ment capabilities needed to make detailedchoices based on design and performance char-acteristics of the products.

While the trade-offs between customizationand standardization, it is important to realizethat there is no one particular optimal resolu-tion. The balance between the two dependsupon the application and context, as will beseen later.

Actor participation

Different actors need to be involved at differentstages of the GES development and dissemina-tion process. The initial assessment of user re-quirements calls for the involvement ofindividuals with expertise in participatory ruralappraisals (PRAs) so that the process elicits therequisite information from the users them-selves. At the same time, one may also need togather information about the social, culturaland institutional milieu of the users – this be-comes particularly important for rural or infor-mal sector applications where the acceptanceand uptake of novel technologies might often beinfluenced by factors other than economic ones.In addition, in such applications, users don’toften have the skills and capabilities to maintainthese systems (or sometimes even operate them,

especially for village-level systems). Thus localinstitutions such as NGOs or cooperativesmight be critical to the technology’s adoptionand continued use. An assessment of biomassresources that are locally available is also neces-sary—this may require some interaction be-tween local personnel and biomass experts.

This needs to be communicated to the technicalpersonnel who will be involved in modifying oradapting gasifiers to suitably utilize the feed-stocks available. Much research has alreadybeen carried out on the utilization of variouskinds of biomass in gasifiers but technical issuesstill need to be resolved, especially in the case ofagricultural feedstocks. At the same time, thesepersonnel also have to design the overall energysystem, which will very much depend on theeventual application. This might necessitatevisits to the eventual locale of application andinteractions with users. This interaction willcontinue and strengthen once prototypes havebeen developed for testing in the field withpotential customers. Once the technical devel-opment is completed, the design of the gasifier,the components, and the entire system needs tobe refined by industrial designers to improvethe operability and the manufacturability of thegasifier. Potential manufacturers will also likelywant to get involved at this stage

The mode of distribution of the system to theuser becomes a central issue in the case of GESs.The manufacturers themselves may be responsi-ble for distribution, especially if they are small-scale, and hence local, entities. Large, non-local,manufacturers may prefer to handle the distri-bution through local retailers. Still, the processof selecting, customizing (to the extent needed),

22 This is somewhat akin to the ‘open source’ move-ment in the software industry.

25



and assembling requires some technical skills asdo the operation and maintenance of the sys-tem. While some enterprise-level users willlikely have such skills in house, smaller firmowners or rural users will not. For the lattergroups, some intermediary individuals or orga-nizations may be required to assist in the selec-tion, installation, operation and maintenance ofGESs, who in turn will need training.

Financing of gasifier dissemination is anothercritical issue. The kinds of financing approacheswill have to be tailored specifically to the speci-ficity of the application being considered. Thisin turn will determine the kinds of institutionsthat will need to be involved. In some cases,commercial banks may be suitable whereas inothers micro-finance institutions may be need-ed. Appropriate interfacing of such institutionswith gasifier projects will require awarenesscreation within these institutions to addressperceptions about technology, economic, finan-cial, and institutional risk.

All of this suggests that there is no one set ofactors, or one institutional model, that will sat-isfy the needs of all applications for which GESsmay be deployed. Furthermore, successfulscale-up for any application requires participa-tion by, and communication among, a numberof actors.

Selection criteria and other issues for scal-ing up

As the previous discussions have made clear,questions pertaining to scaling up and wide-spread deployment of GESs can only be re-solved by taking into account the particularitiesof specific applications and context. Still, thereare a few key criteria that will need to be satis-fied for any application. These are:

• technological feasibility which in turn de-pends on the kind of technologies and bio-mass that are available and the nature of theend-use application;

• clear benefits (social, economic, or environ-mental) that would result from the applica-tion;

• economic feasibility of the applicationwhich in turn depends on the economics ofGES operation in relation to the economicsof the existing energy system or other po-tential alternatives. The economics of theGES operation (as with other options) de-pends on the capital costs of the equipment,operational costs (that are a function ofbiomass costs, efficiency of energy conver-sion and delivery), maintenance costs, aswell as the load factor;

• possibility of utilizing economies of scale inproduction of the gasifiers and other com-ponents, and in delivery of systems andservices;

• feasibility and sustainability of institutionalstructures to deliver, operate, and maintainthese energy systems.

Obviously, it would improve the potential forsuccess of scale-up if the applications of choicewere able to build on the existing experienceswith gasifier deployment and use.

For any application that satisfies the filters list-ed above, a host of issues then need to be con-sidered in order to proceed with scale-up. Theseinclude:

• Need identification and assessment, whichinvolves understanding in detail the vari-

26



ous energy needs of the target group(whether enterprises or individuals).

• Resource and capability assessment, whichinvolves developing a better comprehen-sion of the financial, human and institution-al resources that are available with the usersof the GES as well as at the local level wherethe gasifier will ultimately be deployed. Thekinds of biomass resources that are avail-able will also need to be evaluated.

These two issues are among the most criticalsince the design of the gasifier-based energysystem as well as the institutional setup of thedeployment effort will depend on the needs ofthe beneficiaries23 and with the resources avail-able to them for deploying, using and maintain-ing these systems

• Technology/product needs will be deter-mined by the energy needs of the users, bythe available biomass feedstocks as well asby the human and financial resources thatcan be mobilized for utilization of the gasifi-ers. Thus the kind of gasifier design, scale ofthe system, the level of automation as wellas instrumentation etc. will need to be sort-ed out. Technology/product needs will alsobe very different for electrical and thermalapplications.

• Technology/product development trans-lates the technology/product needs into asuitable design for the gasifier technologiesas well as of the overall system. Clearly,relying on standardized designs, if avail-able, will be helpful in streamlining thisprocess and controlling the costs.

• Manufacturing is an extremely importantissue since it will be important to utilize

economies of scale to the extent possibleand also maintain the quality of the prod-uct. The latter issue cannot be overempha-sized since poor quality of the productwould affect not only the immediate usersbut also influence the decisions of otherpotential users. Particular attention mayalso be need to be paid to manufacturingroutes for smaller gasifiers since these mayafford a higher degree of standardizationand therefore should be amenable to pro-duction by smaller manufacturers. Thiswould also lead to some competitionamong producers but this would depend tosome extent on the supply channels avail-able to these manufacturers.

• Product supply channels will be requiredfor ensuring that gasifiers are available toall users. This is a particularly importantissue for smaller gasifiers where the manu-facturers will not have the interest (or theresources) to be a direct supplier to the us-ers. In such cases, a potentially useful routecould be using existing distributor net-works (for example, those for small dieselengines).

• Biomass supply linkages will also need tobe set up. In some cases, these may already

23 “Beneficiaries” as used here refers to the organiza-tions or individuals who derive economic, social orother benefits from the implementation of the gasifier,as assessed in relation to the existing situation. “Us-ers” refers to the organizations or individuals who de-ploy and/or operate and maintain these gasifiers. Insome cases, these terms may refer to the same entity(as in the case of a large firm, for example) or differententities (as in the case of rural areas where the benefi-ciaries would be villagers whereas the users would bethe NGO or some other organization that undertakesto raise the money for, install, operate and maintainthe gasifiers and associated components).

27



exist but in other cases, especially wheregasifiers are being used in clusters, coordi-nation to ensure a reliable supply of biom-ass will be more efficient than individualactors attempting to set up their own sup-ply linkages.

• Product deployment routes will depend onthe characteristics of the ultimate beneficia-ries. Large firms will have the human re-sources, access to finance, as well as themotivation to install gasifiers if the benefitsare clear. Yet in other cases where the bene-ficiaries are smaller enterprises or ruralpopulations, deployment may be contingenton the presence of entrepreneurs, NGOs orother intermediaries who would have thewillingness to play this role. Exploration ofinnovative institutional models may also behelpful in such cases.

• Operation & maintenance requirementswill depend very much on the characteris-tics of the users. Users of large systems willhave the in-house resources to ensure suit-able operation of their systems (and likelyalso have the support from manufacturers).But users of small systems will probablyneed O&M training. Some local technicalback-up may also be useful since directinteractions with manufacturers may not bepossible.

• Financing options will vary from applica-tion to application. Large enterprises maywell have access to commercial sources offinance but smaller enterprises as well assmall entrepreneurs or NGOs might requireinnovative financing routes. In some cases,financing may be required not only for theup-front capital costs but also for providingworking capital.

Scaling-up in various applications andcontexts

We have attempted to analyze the complex uni-verse of choices on the basis of the above crite-ria, using the lessons and experiences from theIndian case to inform and guide us in this exam-ination. Ultimately, four categories of applica-tions seem to present particularly viable optionsfor large-scale deployment of gasifier-basedenergy systems to promote social and economicdevelopment as well as environmental im-provement. Table 5 presents an overview ofthese applications and choices/options alongvarious dimensions and Table 7 presents thekinds of incremental costs that might be re-quired for scale-up for each application.

To outline briefly, the first two categories main-ly focus on thermal productive applications. Inthe first case, the implementation of gasifier-based systems in SMEs offers the possibility ofincreasing the efficiency of process-heat deliv-ery. [In some cases, biomass-based electricitymay also allow the replacement of grid poweror other existing fuel use for electricity genera-tion in SMEs (individually or in clusters).] Thesecond category—the small, unorganized sec-tor—also presents an opportunity to increasesignificantly, and in an economically favorablemanner, the efficiency of process heat deliveryin a large number of enterprises. In addition toaiding natural resource conservation, thiswould also result in improvements in local andworkplace environments. The economics ofshifting to GESs from liquid-fuel based heatdelivery, as is often the case in SMEs, or fromtraditional biomass burning, as is generally thecase for informal enterprises, are quite favor-able. In addition to this, both of these categoriesof applications also have other characteristicsthat would aid or facilitate large-scale deploy-

28



ment of gasifier-based energy systems. Theseinclude: the large number of such enterprisesand the large scale of energy utilization in theaggregate by them; ready availability of gasifiertechnologies for thermal applications; currentlyexisting, or the significant potential for, biomasssupply options; and the possibility of standard-ization of designs and hence volume-manufac-turing.

SMEs often will have the institutional capacityto operate and maintain these technologies aswell as the willingness generally to accept newtechnologies. Small, informal enterprises, on theother hand, may not have the capacity to oper-ate and maintain these technologies; they willnot have the financial resources to change overto gasifiers; and they often may be unwilling tomake a shift from the status quo. All of theseconstraints will have to be overcome by thedesign of suitable delivery mechanisms.

The other two categories center around the de-livery of electric power by GESs. The first ofthese, captive power in enterprises where thereis an availability of excess and waste biomass,seems attractive because of the potential to re-place significant amounts of grid power (gener-ally dominated by fossil-based generation) bybiomass-based power which can be cheaper andoffer higher reliability. Some technology devel-opment will likely be needed, among otherthings, for appropriate gasification of a numberof feedstocks and for the development of 100%producer-gas engines in order to make feasiblethe widespread utilization for such application.This category of applications, though, offers asignificant potential for power generation be-cause of the large quantities of biomass availableas waste and/or by-products of industrial andagricultural processing. Furthermore, the scaleof each individual transaction should make this

an attractive opportunity for gasifier manufac-turers as will the uniformity of the feedstock inany given facility. The established and commer-cial nature of the user firms should also assist inprocuring financing for projects as well as inoperation and maintenance of the equipment

The fourth, and last category—rural areas—isperhaps the most important one because of thesignificant (human, social and economic) devel-opmental benefits that would accrue from thedeployment of gasifiers to provide modernenergy services. For the case of remote villages,biomass supply and availability of technologyshould not present any major barriers althoughsome effort will likely be required to developsmall, robust gasifier-based power generationsystems. More importantly, though, the devel-opment of suitable institutional mechanisms todeliver, operate, and maintain the gasifiers andassociated systems takes prominence as a criti-cal issue. Overcoming lack of financial resourceswill also require the development of appropri-ate financing mechanisms. In the case of grid-interfaced projects (i.e., larger-scale gasifiers inrural areas that have grid connections), an addi-tional issue will arise in terms of suitable insti-tutional mechanisms to ensure biomass supply.Financing for these applications will also needto dealt with.

The rest of this section covers each of these cate-gories in greater detail. Note that the detailedresults of the economic and financial analysesfor all the applications are presentedin Annexure A 3.1, and the underlying assump-tions are presented in Annexure A3.2.

Small and Medium Enterprises

There are a large number of SMEs that use largeamounts of process heat as part of their indus-

29



trial operations. These include chemicals manu-facturers, large brick kilns, steel re-rollers,foundries, lime kilns, rubber driers, and ceram-ics manufacturers, to name a few categories. Asignificant fraction of these enterprises use liq-uid fuels, such as diesel and furnace oil, to pro-vide this process heat—this turns out to be avery expensive option. Many other firms al-ready use biomass, albeit in a very inefficientfashion to provide this process heat. Shifting toutilizing gasifiers to generate producer gas fromthe biomass, and then burning this gas can in-crease the efficiency of the heating process sub-stantially, often by as much as a factor of two. Inmany cases, the electricity needs of the SMEscould also be served by gasifier-based energysystems replacing grid-based electricity (thatoften has unreliable supply) or liquid-fuel-based generation.

The relevant size of gasifiers for this applicationis about 30-200 kW. Successful implementationof such systems for thermal applications requiregasifiers that can make use of the biomass al-ready being used in these SMEs—this does notpresent any major technological constraint,although some developmental work may berequired for utilizing specific feedstocks. For themore common feedstocks, it should be possibleto standardize the gasifier designs. The volumesof production should also be large enough toattract large manufacturers. For gasifiers aimedat utilizing biomass categories that are less com-mon, yet are the primary energy resource forsome SMEs, the volumes may be too small toattract large manufacturers but smaller, possiblylocal or regional, manufacturers could fabricatethese gasifiers.

For the larger of these systems (of the order of100kW or more), the manufacturers themselvesmay be interested in interacting with the firms

to install the systems and provide maintenancecontracts. In such cases, the beneficiaries, i.e.,the firms, would also be the users of these gas-ifiers. For smaller systems, entrepreneurs maybe able to step into the gap between the manu-facturers and the firms. These individuals couldplay multiple roles: they could assist in the in-stallation of the energy systems; they couldprovide maintenance services; and they couldalso be providers of biomass, depending on theneeds of the relevant SMEs. In such cases, thebeneficiaries, i.e., the firms, would be differentfrom the users, i.e., the entrepreneurs.

The economic and financial aspects of using agasifier to replace liquid fuels are extremelyfavorable across different unit capacities—thepayback period for a small or a medium gasifieris of the order of 6 months (see Table 6a) whilethe IRR is over 690% (see table A3.1.3a). Evenreplacing traditional, inefficient biomass-basedheat is still favorable (although not as much asin the liquid fuel case), given the increase inefficiency of biomass use that is often possible.In this case, the payback period is approximate-ly two years. In the latter case, productivity andproduct quality can also improve, given that thequality of heat delivered is much better for agasifier-based system as compared to tradition-al biomass combustion. Such improvementswill also add substantially to the benefits, low-ering the payback time.

The main barrier to the uptake of gasifiers islikely to be a lack of information and awareness.There have been almost no systematic and con-certed efforts by either the government or bythe private sector to disseminate information topotential users about gasifier applications. Sell-ing, installing, and maintaining these systems tosmaller SMEs can be an appealing businessopportunity for entrepreneurs who could help

30



overcome these informational barriers. In such acase, a focus of the scale-up activity would needto be programs to attract such entrepreneurs bydemonstrating the financial and economic at-tractiveness of GES applications.

Yet another possibility with regard to the de-ployment of gasifier-based energy systems inSMEs is to use these for delivering power to anindividual SME (or a cluster where the aggre-gate load of the cluster is large). In the formerarrangement, the gasifiers would be in the 30–100kW range and the SME itself would be theoperator of the gasifier. In the case of clusters,the most feasible institutional model wouldlikely be an entrepreneur acting as an energyservice company who contracts with the clusterto provide power at cheaper rates, and greaterreliability, than the grid. In such a case, the gas-ifier size would be larger, in the 100–200 kWrange.

For electricity generation gasifiers need to becoupled either to a dual-fuel diesel engine or toa 100%-producer-gas engine. For both options,some development may be required for gasifi-ers that can utilize non-woody-biomass feed-stocks, if those are the only options available, togenerate engine-quality gas. The producer-gas-engine option offers more favorable economicsbut its implementation is contingent on thesuccessful development of such engines. Thedevelopment of appropriate instrumentationand control systems is also needed.

With the present grid prices, though, none ofthe gasifier-based power options for SMEs lookparticularly competitive or financially viabledue to high liquid fuel costs in dual-fuel opera-tion and high costs of the 100%-producer-gasengines (see Figure 2a and Table A3.1.3b). Incases where the hours of operation are longer(i.e., higher PLF), and where a cheaper 100%-

producer-gas-based engine could be developed,the 100%-producer-gas-enegine based option inthe medium capacity (100 kW) range emerges asbeing competitive with grid power (see Figure2b). The financial aspects of such an operationare also attractive (see Table A3.1.3b). Of course,for any SME already relying on liquid-fuel-based generation due to unreliable grid supply,it would be highly economical to shift to gasifi-er-based generation.

Informal sector

Enormous numbers of small, informal enter-prises exist that rely on thermal energy for un-dertaking many of their operations. Categoriesinclude small brick kilns, small agro-processingunits, soap and oil manufacture, silk reeling,textile dyeing and small bakeries. Biomass isoften the primary energy source for these enter-prises, since it is often the only available energysupply option for them—given the scale andnature of their operations, often this biomass isused in an extremely inefficient fashion (oftensimply being burnt). Replacement by gasifier-based heat delivery systems can not only in-crease the efficiency of the biomass use, but alsoimprove workplace conditions.

Gasifiers in the size range of 5–20 kW will coverthe process heat needs of most of these usersand the basic gasifier technology for such appli-cations is fairly well developed. Robust andlow-cost gasifier designs for a range of majorfeed stocks would greatly facilitate their wide-spread deployment by making them more af-fordable as well as reliable in their operations.Both of these issues are particularly importantsince these users have only limited financial ortechnically-skilled manpower resources. Theinstallation of the energy system based on thesegasifiers will likely require some customization,

31



although the overall design and the major com-ponents can be mostly standardized.

Volume manufacturing is absolutely essential tocontrolling the costs as well as the build qualityof these gasifiers. The standardization of gasifi-er and component designs should be able tosupport high levels of production. Both mid-to-large scale as well as small-scale manufacturersmay be interested in building these gasifiers. Inthe case of the latter, particular care will need tobe taken to ensure appropriate quality control.Multiple manufacturers would also promotemarket competition and further lowering ofprices.

Given the nature of the customers, intermediar-ies such as entrepreneurs, NGOs, or self-helpgroups will almost certainly be needed to cus-tomize, install, and maintain these energy sys-tems. Local small manufacturers may also wantto provide these services as an extension of thesale of the equipment. In the case where smallentrepreneurs, NGOs, or self-help groupswould take up this role, they will certainly needto be provided with some training as well astechnical support for problems that can’t beresolved easily. This technical support could beprovided by manufacturers or even by localtechnical institutes. Any of these intermediaryindividuals/organizations may also follow the‘energy service delivery’ model where they alsotake on the responsibility of the gasifier opera-tion as well as ensuring a biomass supply, andbasically contract with the enterprises for deliv-ery of process heat. This approach has the addi-tional advantage in that it can help ensure abetter control over feedstock characteristics andprocessing (that in turn should positively affectthe gasifier operation). It should be noted that itmay be easier for these intermediary actors/organizations to operate in areas that have clus-

ters of these enterprises—such a geographicalconcentration greatly aids the provision of thesekinds of services.

Two key critical issues for the deployment ofgasifiers in the informal sector are the availabili-ty of appropriate financing as well as aversionto change among such firms. It should be noted,though, that the concerns about change are root-ed in their precarious financial positions. Anydisruption in operations, and the resulting lossof cash flow, could have serious implications forthese actors. Hence reliability is an importantissue and change is undesirable, even if eco-nomically and financially attractive in the ag-gregate, if it increases uncertainty.

It will be generally impossible for these enter-prises to finance even a low-cost gasifier, andthey generally do not have easy access to capi-tal. On the other hand, the sums of money in-volved in any individual transaction are toosmall to receive consideration at most financialinstitutions. Even individual enterprises are tobuy their gasifiers, then some form of micro-finance will need to be made available. Anotherpossibility may be to group a number of firmstogether to facilitate the financing. If intermedi-ary actors intend to disseminate the technologyby acting as energy service companies (ESCOs),then they will probably need suitable financingto cover their initial outlays.

As in the case of SMEs, liquid-fuel-replacementby biomass has a payback of about 6 months(Table 6b). Replacing traditional, inefficientbiomass-based heat is also economically viable,given the increase in efficiency of biomass usethat is often possible, although the paybackperiod here is approximately 3–4 years. But inthe case of informal enterprises, productivityand product quality enhancements are likely to

32



be significant, which will substantially improvethe economics of operation. The financial as-pects of a switch from traditional biomass com-bustion to gasifier-based heat delivery are alsovery favorable. A sample financial calculation,for a 30kW gasifier purchased with a soft loan(i.e., a rate of interest of 8% as compared to theassumed commercial interest rate of 12%) indi-cates that the present value (PV) of the recur-ring cash flows were 1.6 times the initial capitaloutlay; the internal rate of return (IRR) was 23%(see Table A3.1.3c) due to substantial savings infuel costs. The cash flow is positive from thefirst year of operation, while the break-evenpoint comes in the 6th year of operations.

Captive power

This category pertains to the use of gasifier-based electricity generation systems to utilizethe excess/waste biomass that is available as aby-product of agricultural or industrial process-ing. Hence the key features of the biomass sup-ply are: large quantities, relative uniformity ofcomposition, and one single supply source.. It isthese features that make this category of appli-cations particularly attractive. Examples of thisinclude rice mills that have an abundance ofwaste rice husk, sugar mills that have largequantities of bagasse, and cashew-processing-enterprises that produce cashew-nut shells aswaste.24 The generation of captive powerwould be intended to replace the grid-basedsupply, which is the existing source of powerfor these enterprises.

Depending on the size of the enterprise, thegasifier-based electricity generation systemwould have capacities in the range of 100–500kW. Successful implementation of such systemsare contingent upon development of gasifiersthat can make use of the major biomass catego-

ries available—this may require further techno-logical development in many cases such as ricehusk, sugarcane bagasse, cashew-nut shells etc.This should not, however, be a major constraint,given the significant amount of progress madein the last two decades on gasifier development.There may be a need to reconcile design optionsand parameters suggested by different research-ers/manufacturers for operation with variousbiomass feedstocks. While the gasifier can becoupled to a duel-fuel diesel engine, the eco-nomics are far more favorable with 100%-pro-ducer-gas operation, but that is contingent onthe successful development of such engines.The development of appropriate instrumenta-tion and control systems is also needed.

Given the large scale of the overall system, andthe relative uniformity of the feedstock acrossmost of the firms in any category (for example,the rice husk produced by all rice mills will berather similar), it may be possible to standardizethe elements (i.e., the gasifier, engine, etc.) aswell as the system design. It should also bepossible to persuade large engineering firms tomanufacture these systems because of the com-bination of high values and volumes. (Ofcourse, the firms may not want to commit tomanufacturing these systems unless they havesome idea of the market, hence a careful marketanalysis will likely be needed.) The clear advan-tage of having an engineering enterprise withsubstantial experience in manufacturing tobuild these systems is that then all the benefitsof volume-production (as mentioned previous-

24 Large amounts of biomass may be available in theforms of such sources. For example, about 30 milliontons of rice husk is available annually in India – if allof this were used for power generation using biomassgasifiers, about 10 GW of capacity could be set up (Min-istry of Agriculture, Government of India. (http://agricoop.nic.in)

33



ly) could be reaped. It may also be economicallyworthwhile for them to install the systems andprovide maintenance contracts. Of course, theuser firms will likely have the skilled manpow-er necessary for operating and day-to-day main-tenance of the gasifier-based generation system.

The economics of power generation using alarge size gasifier (500kW) with either a dual-fuel-engine or a 100%-producer-gas-enginecompares quite favorably to grid power (seeFigure 3a). Note that for any size, a 100%-pro-ducer-gas-based system is more economicalthan a dual-fuel system25 —this holds not just inthis application but all applications. Even withthe mid-size gasifier and 100%-producer-gascombination, the generated power is almostcompetitive with current grid electricity prices.Since capital costs form a large component ofthe levelized costs, increasing the plant loadfactor of the GES or lowering the price of the100%-producer-gas engine improves the situa-tion even further (see Figured 3b and 3c). Asample financial calculation, for a 100kW gasifi-er coupled to a 100%-producer-gas-based en-gine, indicates that the present value (PV) of therecurring cash flows were 1.9 times the initialcapital outlay; the internal rate of return (IRR)was 26% (see Table A3.1.3d). Such a projectwould also be financially attractive in that cashflows are positive from the first year of opera-tions since the avoided costs of power purchaseare quite substantial. The break-even point forthe project would be in the 5th year.

There might also be significant economic valueto the GHG mitigation aspect of such an activity—even though each individual implementationis only a sub-MW scale, on the aggregate theactivity could lead to substantial carbon sav-ings. Additionally, the carbon credits can beeasily monitored since they are directly linked

to the level of electricity production that will bemetered. Furthermore, given the vagaries ofgrid-connected power in many developingcountries, a captive generation system also of-fers the benefit of a reliable electricity supply.

The main barrier to the scale-up of such an ac-tivity is likely to be lack of information andawareness. Scaling up may also require the in-tervention of outside agencies to help set up theinstitutional arrangements to assist in technolo-gy development and manufacturing. The userfirms may not have easy access to capital toinstall these systems so suitable financial ar-rangements may be needed to make availableloans.

Rural areas: (a) Remote villages

Biomass gasifiers can play significant role inhelping bring modern energy services to villag-es that do not have any access to electric powerby virtue of their geographical remoteness fromthe power grid. For example, the only source oflighting in many villages is kerosene lamps.One of the problems with trying to providedecentralized power to villages is that the costof power is highly dependent on the load factor.Hence an energy project aimed to providingonly improved basic amenities such as lightingand water will be economically infeasible due toheavily time-dependent or intermittent natureof the load. However utilizing the output of thegasifier for thermal or electrical productive uses(such as irrigation, telephony, oil pressing, coldstorage, etc.) can help greatly increase the loadfactor and also provide a smooth load. In such a

25 This is true even though at present the 100% pro-ducer gas engine prices are more than their dual-fuelcounterparts by almost a factor of four.

34



scenario, gasifiers can play a role in both meet-ing basic human needs and providing betterlivelihoods for rural people through creation ofa rural infrastructure. Hence the social return torural energy provision can be enormous.

The gasifier size requirements for such ruralapplications are of the order of 10–30 kW. As inthe informal sector, the large-scale deploymentof gasifier-based energy systems depends on theavailability of robust, low-cost gasifiers for themajor feed stocks. Power generation will alsorequire small-scale 100%-producer-gas engines.Development of such technologies, therefore,becomes a key issue for mainstreaming gasifiersin rural areas. Additionally, it is probably desir-able to standardize the complete energy deliv-ery system as a package—this would reduce thecosts of production and even more importantly,greatly ease the installation and maintenanceprocedures.

Given that there are enormous numbers of vil-lages that could benefit from such a rural ener-gy provision approach, large volumes ofgasifier production may be warranted with itsattendant economic and other benefits men-tioned previously. If the design of the completepackage is standardized, a number of differentmanufacturers could produce the systems andcompete in the market.

For such rural applications, NGOs or communi-ty-based organizations are likely to be best suit-ed to undertake the dissemination of thesesystems since no individual in a village wouldhave the incentive or the skills to install, operateand maintain such a system. In fact, these inter-mediary organizations would need to act asenergy service companies (ESCO)s, effectivelyproviding the energy service to the villagers.26

The collection of biomass itself could be used asa livelihood-enhancing activity with the ESCO

offering to procure biomass from individuals.Obviously, representatives from these organiza-tions (or others hired specifically) would oper-ate and maintain the system—the requisitetraining will be needed for that. Manufacturersand local technical institutes could providetechnical support, as needed.

The levelized cost of generation using a 100%producer-gas-engine-based GES27 is almosttwice that of the grid supply (see Figure 4—itshould be noted, though, that the grid supplycost shown in this figure is not the avoided costof supplying electricity to remote areas.28) Still,this option is cheaper than an alternative supplyoption such as diesel-engine-based generation.A sample financial calculation29 for a 30kWgasifier coupled to a 100%-producer-gas engineindicates that the present value (PV) of the re-curring cash flows were 0.14 times the initialcapital outlay and the internal rate of return(IRR) was 16% (see Table A5.1.3e). Importantly,it should be noted that even when the initialcosts of setting up the GES are completely sub-sidized, positive cash flows are realized only inthe 5th year of operation and the break-evenpoint (on a PV basis) occurs only in the 8th year

26 This, for instance, is the model being followed byGram Vikas, an NGO in India (TERI et. al., 2001).27 This is likely to be the best option for remote ruralareas since it eliminates the dependence on diesel(which needs to be transported in) for power genera-tion.28 While it is hard to arrive at the actual cost of powersupply to remote rural areas, supply costs are likely tobe substantially higher that what is indicated in Fig-ure 4 due to investments needed for setting up a T&Dinfrastructure in rural remote areas.29 The cash flow calculations assume that the entirecapital costs for the project are available in the form ofgrants. For detailed assumptions on load distributionpatterns, refer to Annexure 3.2a2.

35



of operation (see Table A3.1.3e). Once again, itshould be noted that the economics and financ-es of this option can be significantly improvedby lowering the currently high costs of 100%-producer-gas engines.30 In any case, given thelarge social returns from such projects, subsidiz-ing this activity may be quite desirable.

Some mechanism will need to be set up toprovide financing for working capital to suchorganizations on favorable terms—in fact,there is a great need for innovative financingmechanisms. Other experiences with rural pro-grams suggest villagers should be willing topay for these energy services, and hence thecash flow. An institutional design that makesvillagers participants and stakeholders in theprocess will, of course, reduce the risks of non-recovery.

Regulatory interventions may be necessary fortariff regulation for decentralized supply sourc-es—a separate provision for this needs to beincorporated in the regulatory framework.There is also a need to integrate objectives ofrural electrification programmes with ruraldevelopment programmes.

Rural areas: (b) Grid-interfaced projects

Many rural areas are connected to the grid yetsuffer from a shortage of power availability dueto lack of adequate power supplies. The benefitsof providing electrical power to such areas arevery similar to the benefits mentioned in theprevious case. The main differences here is thatit is possible to piggyback on the existing gridinfrastructure to provide power to a number ofvillages utilizing one centralized generationsource, and at the same time, feeding back theexcess power to the grid to improve the eco-nomics of operation.

The gasifiers used in such cases would be largerthan for remote villages, and would be in the100-500kW range. While gasifiers in this sizerange do exist, there may be a need to developthose suited for specific biomass Once again, a100%-producer-gas-driven engine would beneeded for this application as would some im-proved instrumentation for local distribution aswell as interfacing with the grid supply. All inall, these gasifiers would be quite similar tothose used in the captive power applications(allowing for some differences in the kinds ofbiomass feedstocks between these applications)and hence one could benefit from the produc-tion of gasifiers for that application.

Clearly some intermediary organizations will berequired for implementing such a project toensure biomass supplies, operation of the gasifi-er and engine, maintenance and troubleshoot-ing; as well as collecting revenue from thevillagers. The ESCO model will likely be themost suitable one where one organization takeson all these tasks effectively.

For large gasifiers (500kW) coupled to 100%-producer-gas engines (an option, once again,cheaper than the dual-fuel operation), the level-ized cost of power generation is comparable tothat of grid electricity because of the higher PLFpossible because of sales to the grid (Figure 5a).If the 100%-producer-gas engine cost can bereduced (to be comparable, for example to thatof a dual-fuel engine of equivalent size), theneven the medium-size system (100kW) becomescompetitive (Figure 5b). Even financially, theproject is attractive with the present value (PV)

30 If the cost of a 100%-producer-gas engine can bebrought down to the same level as a dual-fuel engine,then the PV of the recurring cash flows are a third ofthe initial capital outlay.

36



of the recurring cash flows being 1.7 times theinitial capital outlay and the internal rate ofreturn (IRR) being 23% (see Table A5.13f).31

Financing is again a major issue here but giventhe nature of the project and the social benefitsthat accrue from it, the government and donorinstitutions should be interested in supportingit. Appropriate policies for selling power to thegrid are also critical since the viability of theproject pivots around this sale.

Systems-level issues for scale-up

There are a number of issues that emerge asbeing critical to successful large-scale gasifierdevelopment and deployment and which needto be tacked at the systems-level. That is to say,they need to be considered not as part of indi-vidual projects but as part of the foundationthat underpins projects across all applications.These include:

• Establishment of design guidelines, perfor-mance standards, and performance testingand certification facilities: In cases where itis feasible and desirable to disseminatestandardized designs in the public domain,one would need to lay out the full designfor the products. In other cases, guidelinesfor critical design issues such as materialsselection (for example, the requisite gradesof stainless steel to withstand hot gases orthe refractory materials for the reactor)could be discussed. Both of these would beparticularly useful for smaller manufactur-ers. The establishment of performance stan-dards is also useful for GES manufacturerssince it sets up targets (such as the qualityof gas needed for a 100%-producer-gas en-gine or of the thermal efficiency of the GES).It also makes it easier to assess the perfor-

mance in the field relative to these stan-dardized benchmarks. Performance testingand certification facilities ensure GESs ortheir components such as gasifiers are per-forming as per the manufacturers’ specifica-tions. This is particularly important forbuilding user confidence in the technologysince most users do not have the facilities orthe technical skills to assess such perfor-mance.

• Information and awareness programs: Theaim of such programs is to help convincepotential users of the utility of GESs forsatisfying their energy needs (where theusers are SMEs and other formal enterpris-es), or of the latent opportunities (i.e., theusers would be entrepreneurs, NGOs, etc.)to provide energy services to other actors(such as informal enterprises or rural popu-lations). Such programs need to convey notonly the potential value of GESs but alsoback it up by examples of successful imple-mentation.

• Actor interactions and networks: Regularand detailed interactions, as well as openchannels of communication, between dif-ferent actors from the same parts of theinnovation chain (for example, among re-searchers) and actors from different partsof the innovation chain (researchers,manufacturers, users, O&M personnel,financing agencies, policy-makers, etc.)are a crucial aspect of developing a robustand dynamic innovation system. Whilesome level of interactions and networks

31 This assumes a soft loan, with an interest rate halfthat of commercial rates. For detailed assumptions onload distribution patterns refer to Annexure A3.2a3.

37



will develop in any case, concerted effortsare often required to strengthen and pro-mote these.

• Learning from field experiences: It is alltoo common to believe that deployment issuccessful once a GES has been placed inthe field. But the real test of the deploy-ment comes in its performance in the field.How easy is to operate the GES? What is itsreliability? What are the variations in theperformance characteristics in the field?What are the operation and maintenancerequirements? How effectively is the sup-port infrastructure in the case of breakdown? Questions to such issues can pro-vide invaluable data that can help improvefuture designs, yet there are little efforts tocollect such information. The importance ofmechanisms to regularly measure, evaluate,and analyze field experiences, to extract

lessons from this, and then to feed themback into the innovation process cannot beovertstated.

• Appropriate policies: Government policy,without any doubt, is a major factor in thesuccess in the large-scale deployment ofGESs. Attention needs to be paid to threeaspects of public policy in this context: im-prove the effectiveness of policies that arespecifically targeted to assist in the develop-ment and dissemination of GESs (for exam-ple, through review and analysis of pastexperiences), mitigate conflicts with policiesthat may impede this process (for example,grid buy-back policies may hinder sale ofpower to the grid or may set an artificiallylow purchase price), and improve integra-tion with other policies that are in the samegeneral domain (such as rural electrificationor rural development policies).

IDENTIFIC. &ANALYSIS OF NEEDS & RESOURCES

TECH. & PRODUCT DEVT.

DEMO. & TESTING

MANUFAC-TURE

DELIVERY TO USERS

USE & MAINTAIN

Figure 1: Stylized model of the technology development and deployment process. Note that the pro-cess of technology and product development is an iterative process that builds upon feedback ofknowledge and information from the various stages (represented here by )

38



1. SMALL ANDMEDIUMENTERPRISES

Table 5: Overview of relevant issues for potential applications for biomass-gasifier-based energyservice delivery

Thermal Provide processheat for firms whileimprovingefficiency of heatdelivery orsubstituting liquidfuels

Enterprises wherelarge amounts ofprocess heat isrequired.Examples: rubber,chemicalmanufacturing,ceramics, steel re-rolling, large brickkilns, foundries,lime kilns

Increased efficiencyof energy deliveryand improvedcompetitiveness ofindustry;conservation ofbiomass resources;GHG and localenvironmentalbenefits; improvedworkplaceconditions

CoreCategory Category Applications Benefits technology

Medium-to-largescale gasifier; 30–200kW

Power Provide power tosubstitute for gridelectricity orreplace liquid fuels

Enterprises such asCO2manufacturing,textile units, steelannealing

Replacement offossil-based gridelectricity bybiomass-basedpower; reliablepower supply;GHG benefits

Medium-to-largescale gasifier;diesel engine (dualfuel or 100%producer gasmode); 30–100kW

2. INFORMALSECTORENTERPRISES

Thermal Provide processheat forenterprises whileimprovingefficiency of heatdelivery orsubstituting liquidfuels

Micro enterpriseswhere heat isrequired.Examples include:small brick kilns,small agro-processing units(tobacco curing,cardamom drying,puffed-riceproduction, rubbercuring), soap andoil manufacture,silk reeling, textiledyeing, rubberreclamatio

Increased efficiencyof energy delivery;improvedcompetitiveness ofinformal sector;conservation ofbiomass resources;GHG and localenvironmentalbenefits; improvedworkplaceconditions

Small-scalegasifier; 5–20 kW

39



Development needsfor improved Supplier options fortechnologies and Preferable technology gasifier-based energy Maintenance & Financingenergy systems supplier options systems (GES)/energy services upgradation options

Gasifiers forspecific non-woody-biomassfeedstocks

Mid-to-large scalemanufacturers for smalland large gasifiers; small-scale manufacturers forsmall gasifiers

Gasifier manufacturer;third-party GES supplier

Manufacturer;user or GESsupplier withtechnical supportfrommanufacturer

Commercialsources; sometraining offinancingorgns. may berequired toreduce riskperceptionabout gasifiers

Gasifiers forspecific non-woody-biomassfeedstocks; gascooling systems;100% producergas engines (willlikely needcooperation fromengine suppliers);instrumentationand control

Mid-to-large scalemanufacturers for smalland large gasifiers; small-scale manufacturers forsmall gasifiers


User; technicalsupport frommanufacturer


Gasifiers forspecific non-woody-biomassfeedstocks; robust,low-cost gasifiers

Mid-to-large scalemanufacturers; small-scale manufacturers

Small-scale manufacturer,entrepreneur or self-helpgroup acting as customizerand installer of energydelivery system, or actingas ESCO

Same small-scalemanufacturer,entrepreneur orself-help group;technical supportfrommanufacturer ortechnical institutes

Small-industryfinancinginstitutionsand/or micro-finance;favorablefinancingterms andworkingcapital may beneeded


40



3. LARGECAPTIVE

Table 5: Overview of relevant issues for potential applications for biomass-gasifier-based energyservice delivery (continued)

Power Utilize excess/waste biomass forproducingelectricity that canreplace powerbeing supplied bythe grid

Enterprises wherelarge quantities ofexcess/wastebiomass available.Examples: rice,sugarcane, cashewnut, rubber, cocoa,coffee, corn

Replacement offossil-based gridelectricity bybiomass-basedpower; reliablepower supply;GHG benefits


Large-scalegasifier; dieselengine (dual fuelor 100%producer gasmode); 100-500kW

4a. RURAL —REMOTE

Powerandthermal

Provide electricpower forproductive uses (oilpressing, coldstorage, etc.) aswell as lighting,water pumping,irrigation,telephony, etc.;simultaneouslyprovide thermalenergy forproductive uses(drying of ag.produce, etc.)

Remote villagesthat do not have agrid connection,and where deliveryof diesel or otherliquid fuelsinfeasible; clustersof such villages

Improved provisionof basic amenitiessuch as lighting andwater; economicand socialdevelopment

Small-scalegasifier; 100%producer gasdiesel engine; 10–30 kW forsingle village

41




Gasifiers forspecific non-woody-biomassfeedstocks (such asfor rice husk); Gascooling systems;Biomass processing(such as briquettingfor bagasse);100% producergas engines (willlikely needcooperation fromengine suppliers);Instrumentationand co

Large-scalemanufacturers


Gasifiermanufacturer;third-party GESsupplier


Robust, low-costgasifiers; 100%producer gasengines

Mid-to-large scalemanufacturers; small-scale manufacturers

Components of energydelivery systems to bemanufactured asstandardized package;NGOs or otherintermediary organizationsto assemble and operate atlocal level

NGO or otherintermediaryorganizations atlocal level withtechnical supportfrommanufacturer ortechnical institutes

Donoragencies andgovernmentagencies(power/energy, ruraldevelopment);subsidy ofcapitalequipmentcostsrequired;loans forworkingcapitalrequired


42



4b.RURAL —GRID-INTERFACED

Table 5: Overview of relevant issues for potential applications for biomass-gasifier-based energyservice delivery (continued)

Powerandthermal

Provide electricpower forproductive uses (oilpressing, coldstorage, etc.) aswell as lighting,water pumping,irrigation,telephony, etc.;simultaneouslyprovide thermalenergy forproductive uses(drying of agri.produce, etc.);supply excesspower t

Rural areas thathave a gridconnection butonly limited powersupply

Improved provisionof basic amenitiessuch as lighting andwater; economicand socialdevelopment


Large-scalegasifier; dieselengine (dual fuelor 100%producer mode); 100–500

gas

kW

43




Gasifiers for localfeedstocks; gascooling systems;biomass processing(such as briquettingfor bagasse);100% producergas engines (willlikely needcooperation fromengine suppliers);instrumentationand control

Large-scalemanufacturers


NGO or otherintermediaryorganizations atlocal level withtechnical supportfrommanufacturer ortechnical institutes

Donoragencies andgovernmentagencies(power/energy, ruraldevelopment);favorable loansfor capitalequipmentand forworkingcapitalrequired

44



Figure 2: Levelized cost of power generation, SME applications

(a) Base case (PLF = 30%)

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0SDF SPG MDF MPG SD MD GE

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)

Grid SupplyFuelVariable O&MFixed O&MInstallationCapital

(b) High- PLF, low-cost PG engine case (PLF = 60%; producer gas engine cost sameas dual-fuel engine)

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0SDF SPG MDF MPG SD MD GE

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)


45



Figure 3: Levelized cost of power generation, captive power applications


(b) High PLF case (PLF = 60%;)

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)

MDF MPG LDF LPG MD LD GE


18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0MDF MPG LDF LPG MD LD GE

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)


46



(c) High- PLF, low-cost PG engine case (PLF = 60%; producer gas engine cost sameas dual-fuel engine)

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0MDF MPG LDF LPG MD LD GE

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)


Figure 4: Levelized cost of power generation, rural remote applications (Base case, PLF 30%)

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)

SDF SPG SD GE

Grid Supply

FuelVariable O&MFixed O&MInstallationCapital

Service FeeT&D

47



Figure 5: Levelized cost of power generation, rural, grid-interfaced applications


(b) Low-cost PG engine case (producer gas engine cost same as dual-fuel engine)

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)

MDF MPG LDF LPG GE

Grid Supply

FuelVariable O&M

Fixed O&MInstallationCapital

Service Fee

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Technology options

Cos

t (c

/kW

h)

MDF MPG LDF LPG GE

Grid Supply

FuelVariable O&M

Fixed O&MInstallationCapital

Service Fee

48



Table 6: Summary results§ for the economics of thermal applications(a) SMEs†

Gasifier unit size (30kW) Gasifier unit size (100kW)

Gasifier capital costs ($) 3750 12500

For SME units with existing liquid fuel consumption

Net savings ($/hr) 3 9

Payback (months) 6 6

For SME units with existing solid biomass burning

Net savings ($/hr) 0.8 2.7

Payback (years) 2 2† An average 8 hours of daily operation is assumed for a firm in the SME category

(b) Informal enterprises‡



For informal units with existing liquid fuel consumption



For informal units with existing solid biomass burning


Payback (years) 4 3‡ An average 8 hours of daily operation is assumed for a firm in the informal sector.§ Detailed results available in Tables A3.1.1 and A3.1.3a, c.

49



Tabl

e 7:

App

licat

ion-

wis

e ba

selin

es a

nd in

crem

enta

l cos

ts

Appl

icat

ion

cate

gory

Base

line

Incr

emen

tal c

osts

SMEs

(th

erm

al)

Mos

tly fu

rnac

e oi

l and

die

sel;

high

ly-p

ollu

ting

recy

cled

oils

;fir

ewoo

d bu

rnin

g; b

iom

ass

inot

her

form

s; c

harc

oal

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sisPr

oduc

t dev

elop

men

t & fi

eld

tria

ls (fo

r la

rger

gas

ifier

s)Pr

ovid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed d

esig

ns (e

sp. f

or s

mal

ler

firm

s)Tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

for

inst

alla

tion/

retr

ofitt

ing

Con

fiden

ce b

uild

ing

mea

sure

sPe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

s fo

r la

rge

size

gasif

iers

(dev

elop

men

t of

appr

opria

te c

ontr

act;

perf

orm

ance

gua

rant

ee a

ctiv

ities

);La

belin

g an

d st

anda

rds

(may

be

part

icul

arly

imp.

for

smal

l gas

ifier

s)

Dev

elop

men

t of

bio

mas

s m

arke

tsId

entif

icat

ion

of s

usta

inab

le s

uppl

y so

urce

sSe

ttin

g up

sup

ply

netw

ork

Fina

ncin

gTr

aini

ng fi

nanc

iers

Dev

elop

men

t of s

uita

ble

finan

cing

mec

hani

sms

whe

re c

onve

ntio

nal

sour

ces

not a

cces

sible

(esp

. for

sm

alle

r ca

paci

ty a

pplic

atio

ns)

SMEs

(po

wer

)G

rid e

lect

ricity

use

; sig

nific

ant

depe

nden

ce a

lso o

n di

esel

pow

erTe

chno

logy

dev

elop

men

tG

asifi

ers

for

maj

or fe

edst

ocks

100%

PG

eng

ine

deve

lopm

ent c

osts

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sisPr

oduc

t dev

elop

men

t & fi

eld

tria

ls (fo

r la

rger

gas

ifier

s)Pr

ovid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed d

esig

ns (e

sp. f

or s

mal

ler

firm

s)Tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

for

inst

alla

tion/

retr

ofitt

ing

Con

fiden

ce b

uild

ing

mea

sure

sPe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

s fo

r la

rge

size

gasif

iers

(dev

elop

men

t of

appr

opria

te c

ontr

act;

perf

orm

ance

gua

rant

ee a

ctiv

ities

);La

belin

g an

d st

anda

rds

(may

be

part

icul

arly

imp.

for

smal

l gas

ifier

s)

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

50



Tabl

e 7:

App

licat

ion-

wis

e ba

selin

es a

nd in

crem

enta

l cos

ts (

cont

inue

d)

Appl

icat

ion

cate

gory

Base

line

Incr

emen

tal c

osts

Dev

elop

men

t of

bio

mas

s m

arke

tsId

entif

icat

ion

of s

usta

inab

le s

uppl

y so

urce

sSe

ttin

g up

sup

ply

netw

ork

Fina

ncin

gTr

aini

ng fi

nanc

iers

Dev

elop

men

t of s

uita

ble

finan

cing

mec

hani

sms

whe

re c

onve

ntio

nal

sour

ces

not a

cces

sible

(esp

. for

sm

alle

r ca

paci

ty a

pplic

atio

ns)

Info

rmal

sec

tor

(the

rmal

)In

effic

ient

sol

id b

iom

ass

burn

ing;

low

-gra

de d

irty

fuel

s lik

e re

cycl

edoi

l & u

sed

tires

; cha

rcoa

l for

spec

ific

appl

icat

ions

; lim

ited

use

ofco

mm

erci

al fu

els

like

dies

el, L

PG&

ker

osen

e.

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sisPr

oduc

t dev

elop

men

t & fi

eld

tria

ls (fo

r la

rger

gas

ifier

s)Pr

ovid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed d

esig

ns &

inde

pend

ent t

estin

g an

d ce

rtifi

catio

n (e

sp.

for

smal

ler

firm

s)Tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

for

man

ufac

ture

rs)

T rai

ning

pro

gram

s fo

r in

stal

lati

on/c

usto

miz

atio

nIn

form

atio

n &

trai

ning

pro

gram

s fo

r at

trac

ting

entr

epre

neur

sC

onfid

ence

bui

ldin

g m

easu

res

Labe

ling

and

stan

dard

s (m

ay b

e pa

rtic

ular

ly im

p. fo

r sm

all f

irms)

Fina

ncin

gD

evel

opm

ent o

f inn

ovat

ive

finan

cing

mec

hani

sms

(sin

ce n

o w

orki

ngca

pita

l, or

ava

ilabl

e co

llate

ral;

larg

e w

orki

ng c

apita

l may

be

need

ed fo

r up

-fr

ont c

apita

l cos

ts &

info

rmal

-sec

tor

pecu

liarit

ies)

Larg

e C

apti

ve(p

ower

)G

rid e

lect

ricity

use

;in

crea

sing

relia

nce

on d

iese

l-bas

edge

nera

tion

due

to u

nrel

iabl

e gr

idsu

pply

Tech

nolo

gy d

evel

opm

ent

Gas

ifier

s fo

r m

ajor

feed

stoc

ks10

0% P

G e

ngin

e de

velo

pmen

t cos

ts

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sis,

Prod

uct d

evel

opm

ent &

fiel

d tr

ials

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

51



Tabl

e 7:

App

licat

ion-

wis

e ba

selin

es a

nd in

crem

enta

l cos

ts (

cont

inue

d)

Appl

icat

ion

cate

gory

Base

line

Incr

emen

tal c

osts

Con

fiden

ce b

uild

ing

mea

sure

sPe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

s (d

evel

opm

ent o

f app

ropr

iate

con

trac

t;pe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

act

iviti

es)

Labe

ling

and

stan

dard

s

Fina

ncin

gTr

aini

ng fi

nanc

iers

Dev

elop

men

t of s

uita

ble

finan

cing

mec

hani

sms

whe

re c

onve

ntio

nal

sour

ces

not a

cces

sible

Rur

al: r

emot

e(p

ower

and

ther

mal

)

Kero

sene

for

dom

estic

ligh

ting;

rare

use

of b

atte

ries;

die

sel-b

ased

elec

tric

ity in

spe

cific

cas

es o

fisl

ands

and

for

prod

uctiv

e us

eslik

e pu

mpi

ng, f

lour

mill

ing,

etc

;

Tech

nolo

gyG

asifi

ers

for

maj

or fe

edst

ocks

(dev

elop

men

t cos

ts)

100%

PG

eng

ine

deve

lopm

ent c

osts

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sisPr

oduc

t dev

elop

men

t & fi

eld

tria

ls (fo

r la

rger

gas

ifier

s)Pr

ovid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed d

esig

ns &

inde

pend

ent t

estin

g an

d ce

rtifi

catio

n(e

sp. f

or s

mal

ler

firm

s)Tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

for

man

ufac

ture

rs)

Trai

ning

pro

gram

s fo

r in

stal

lati

onC

onfid

ence

bui

ldin

g m

easu

res

Labe

ling

and

stan

dard

s (m

ay b

e pa

rtic

ular

ly im

p. fo

r sm

all f

irms)

Info

rmat

ion

& t

rain

ing

prog

ram

sFo

r N

GO

s an

d ot

her

inte

rmed

iarie

s

Fina

ncin

gIn

itial

sub

sidy

for

up-f

ront

cap

ital c

osts

Dev

elop

men

t of i

nnov

ativ

e fin

anci

ng m

echa

nism

s Tr

aini

ng &

cap

acity

build

ing

of fi

nanc

iers

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

52



Tabl

e 7:

App

licat

ion-

wis

e ba

selin

es a

nd in

crem

enta

l cos

ts (

cont

inue

d)

Appl

icat

ion

cate

gory

Base

line

Incr

emen

tal c

osts

Rur

al: g

rid-

inte

rfac

e (p

ower

and

ther

mal

)

Grid

sup

ply;

Back

up o

ptio

ns (k

eros

ene,

cand

les,

bat

terie

s, in

vert

ers,

dies

el)

Tech

nolo

gyG

asifi

ers

for

maj

or fe

edst

ock

(dev

elop

men

t cos

ts)

100%

PG

eng

ine

deve

lopm

ent c

osts

Man

ufac

turi

ngIn

form

atio

n &

Aw

aren

ess

Mar

ket a

naly

sisPr

oduc

t dev

elop

men

t & fi

eld

tria

ls

Con

fiden

ce b

uild

ing

mea

sure

sPe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

s (d

evel

opm

ent o

f app

ropr

iate

con

trac

t;pe

rfor

man

ce g

uara

ntee

act

iviti

es)

Labe

ling

and

stan

dard

s (m

ay b

e pa

rtic

ular

ly im

p. fo

r sm

all f

irms)

Info

rmat

ion

& t

rain

ing

prog

ram

sFo

r N

GO

s an

d ot

her

inte

rmed

iarie

s

Fina

ncin

gD

evel

opm

ent o

f sof

t loa

n m

echa

nism

sTr

aini

ng &

cap

acity

bui

ldin

g of

fina

ncie

rs


There is an enormous potential to utilize GESsfor the provision of energy services for a rangeof applications in developing countries. Basedon our analysis of the substantial Indian experi-ence with this technology, a number of applica-tions appear particularly amenable to thescaled-up application of GESs.

At the same time, it is apparent that the scale-upapproach has to be application-specific becauseof the variations in the energy service needsacross applications as well as the availability ofbiomass, financial, human, institutional andother resources. Yet, there are a number of fac-tors to which attention will have to be paid fordeployment in any application. These include:technology and product design, manufacturing,product uptake, operation, maintenance andservicing, biomass supply, and, of course, fi-nancing. While different applications may re-quire differing levels of emphasis on differentelements, none of these can be ignored if dis-semination is to be successful. At the same time,attention has to be paid to the overarching is-sues such as information and awareness pro-grams, learning from field experiences, and

actor interactions that will determine the long-term effectiveness of any overall program ofGES deployment. Table 8 reviews suggestedcategories of applications that could serve assuitable starting points for a program aimed atlarge-scale deployment of biomass gasifiers andkey areas where interventions will be requiredto assist in this process.

We suggest that perhaps the most fruitful scale-up strategy would be one that initially focuseson pure thermal productive applications. Thesecould be taken up in the short-term, given theireconomic and financial feasibility and only mi-nor needs for technology development. At thesame time, a sequenced approach could be fol-lowed for power generation applications. Here,selected pilot transactions could be initiatedwith a view to prompting appropriate technolo-gy and product development and also providelearning about how to best incorporate suchefforts into existing institutional structures forelectricity provision. As successful products andinstitutional delivery models emerge, scale-upwould follow for such applications.

Conclusion5

54



Table 8: Suggested applications for large-scale deployment of biomass gasifiers and key interventionsthat will be required for effective deployment†

Application Objective Interventions

Small andmediumenterprises

Provide process heat to substitute liquid fuelsor inefficient biomass combustion

Minor technology/product development;involve mid-to-large manufacturers; trainfinanciers;help develop biomass markets

Provide power to replace grid power orliquid-fuel-based power

Technology/product development; involvemid-to-large manufacturers; train financiers;help develop biomass markets

Informalenterprises

Provide process heat to substitute liquid fuelsor inefficient biomass combustion

Minor technology/product development;technology standardization and/or opentechnology;involve mid-to-large manufacturers and small-scale manufacturers; promote entrepreneursas ESCOs;train financiers;provide favorable financing for capital costsand working capital

Captivepower

Utilize excess/waste biomass to generateelectricity to replace grid power

Technology/product development; involvelarge manufacturers;train financiers

Rural Provide modern energy services to remotevillages for social and human development

Minor technology/product development;product standardization and/or opentechnology;involve mid-to-large manufacturers and small-scale manufacturers; promote NGOs andother orgns. as ESCOs;provide subsidies for capital costs;favorable financing for working capital

Provide modern energy services to villagesfor social and human development; replace/augment grid power

Technology/product development;involve large-scale manufacturers promoteNGOs and other organizations as ESCOs;provide subsidies for capital costs;favorable financing for working capital

†

Note that “system”-level interventions, common to all applications, will also be required (see section 4.4).


Biomass Gasification

A process in which biomass (usually dry, withmoisture contents less than 20%) is convertedinto a mixture of gases (called producer gas)consisting of combustible gases (mainly hydro-gen, carbon monoxide and methane), non-com-bustible gases (nitrogen, carbon dioxide), andwater vapor.

Gasifiable Material

Sized, relatively dry, firewood (prosopis juliflora,eucalyptus, casurina, acacia, neem wood, man-go wood, etc); wood-like materials such as corn-cobs, lantana (a wildly-growing weed), Ipomea,mulberry sticks; coconut shells, cashew shells,biomass briquettes, and rice husk. Most natural-ly available biomass materials have similar ele-mental composition (C,H,O) on an ash-free andmoisture-free basis. Hence all these materialscan be gasified in suitably designed reactors(gasifiers). But physical and physico-chemical

properties such as bulk density, ash content, ashmelting point, presence of fines, thickness ofbark, and shape of biomass materials varywidely and it is generally not possible to gasifyall kinds of materials in the same gasifier. Henceit is best to design/optimize a gasifier for aspecific biomass and for a specific application.

Gasifier

A reactor in which biomass can be convertedthrough a thermo-chemical reaction under con-trolled conditions, to yield an uninterruptedflow of producer gas.

Air (or oxygen) required for gasification is gen-erally fed into the gasifier either through ablower or by creating suction from the down-stream side of gas exit. After ignition, the vari-ous zones in the gasifier attain certainequilibrium temperatures, after which both theproduction rate and quality (composition, etc.)of the producer gas become steady.

Several types of gasifiers exist: fluidized bedgasifiers, entrained bed gasifiers, circulatingfluidized bed (CFB) gasifiers, and moving bedgasifiers. The first three types are generallyused for large-scale industrial applications andfor pulverized coal or similarly-sized biomass(e.g., rice husk). In the context of the presentreport, moving bed gasifiers are the most rele-vant.33

32 Information in this annexure is based on authors’own knowledge and experiences, unless otherwisestated.33 These are sometimes also called fixed-bed gasifiers,but such a nomenclature is somewhat misleading. Thefuel-bed height keeps decreasing as gasificationprogresses, and fuel has to be charged into the reactoronce the bed height goes below a certain critical leveldecided by the various zone heights within the gas-ifier.

Annexure 1 —Biomass Gasification: A TechnologyPrimer-cum-glossary 32

56



Moving bed gasifiers can again be classified asfour types: downdraft (or co-current; fuel flowand gas flow in the same direction), updraft (orcountercurrent; fuel flow and gas flow in oppo-site directions), cross draft (gas flow perpendic-ular to fuel flow) and natural draft (gas flowinduced by natural draft, hence no need for ablower).

In the downdraft gasifiers, air enters throughnozzles or tuyeres placed about 30–50 cm abovethe grate. In the so-called open-top gasifier orstratified downdraft gasifier (originally con-ceived at the Solar Energy Research Institute(now the National Renewable Energy Laborato-ry) and developed further at the Indian Instituteof Science, IISc), some air enters from top, andsome through nozzles. In the updraft and natu-ral draft gasifiers, there are no nozzles, and allthe air enters through the grate at the bottom.Ignition, and subsequent sustained combustionoccurs near the nozzles for the downdraft de-sign and on the grate for the updraft design.Consequently, the vertical temperature profilesare different for the two designs. While the tem-perature increases steadily from the top of thefuel bed to the grate in the updraft design, thereis a ‘kink’ in the temperature profile at the noz-zle location for the downdraft design.

The original, second world-war downdraft de-signs (also called the classical ‘Imbert’ type de-signs) used a ‘throat’ or constriction in thegasifier just below the nozzle location. The ideawas to pass the ‘tars’ through a high tempera-ture, narrow region so that they can be ‘cracked’(i.e., broken down to simpler molecules likemethane). Gasifiers with throats are not condu-cive for smooth flow of biomass, especially forsmall-capacity systems, and are highly sensitiveto biomass size. Throat less designs are believedto overcome these problems, but as will be dis-

cussed later, the fuel movement problems stillseem to persist in almost all designs.

Whether the gasifier is downdraft or updraft,the gasification process is complete within 1mstarting from the grate. If the gasifier is muchtaller than this, it is because enough fuel has tobe stored in the ‘hopper’ to last for certain num-ber of hours.

The cross-sectional area at the nozzle locationfor downdraft designs and at the grate for up-draft designs is a measure of the throughput ofthe gasifier and hence is an indication of thecapacity. One of the most important design pa-rameters for gasifiers is the Specific GasificationRate (SGR), sometimes called grate loading forupdraft gasifiers, expressed variously in theunits of Nm3/(hr)(cm2) or kg/(hr)(m2) or m/s.(Note: Nm3 is read as normal meter cube, meaningthe volume of gas normalized to 0 0C and 1 atm.).One kg of biomass produces about 2.5–3.0 Nm3

of gas and hence it is relatively simple to calcu-late the cross-sectional area for a given through-put if the SGR is known.

Depending on whether the air is pushed orsucked34 through it, the gasifier operates at apressure either slightly higher or slightly lowerthan the atmospheric pressure respectively.These modes of operation are loosely termed as‘pressure mode’ or ‘suction mode’. For a gasifieroperating under pressure mode, the blower hasto be stopped at the time of charging the biom-ass, so the gasifier operation will be briefly inter-rupted. Gasifiers for applications requiring onlya few hours of operation in a day, such as small

34 This suction can be created through the action of ablower or by the downward stroke of the piston in aninternal combustion engine that is connected to thegasifier.

57

Annexure 1. Biomass Gasification: A Technology Primer-cum-Glossary


enterprises or rural power plants, biomass canbe charged at the beginning or at the end of op-eration. For a gasifier operating in the suctionmode, however, opening a door or fuel portmight result in a temporary change in the qualityof the gas, but the gasifier operation need not beinterrupted. There are other advantages anddrawbacks of both modes of operation, whichwill not be elaborated in this report.

Irrespective of the type, all gasifiers have some-what distinctive zones characterized by differ-ent processes. These are drying, pyrolysis,combustion and reduction zones. It is helpful tounderstand these zones in some detail.

Drying

Drying is characterized by release of moisture,though it is not same as sun-drying or air-dry-ing. Each biomass material may have a typical“drying rate curve” which tells how the dryingrate progresses with decrease in solid moisture.Typical drying times (from about 35% to 10%moisture content) vary from 24 hrs to 72 hrsdepending on temperature, air humidity, airvelocity, size, etc. For practical reasons, mostgasifier designs are sized in such a manner as toallow the biomass to reside in the gasifier foronly a few (4-8) hrs. Hence, irrespective of de-sign, it is generally not feasible to dry the biom-ass to the degree required within the gasifier.Put differently, the gasification of very wet bio-mass or green biomass (freshly cut or freshlyharvested) is generally a very tough proposi-tion. Attempts to do so would normally resultin production of a lot of smoke, very low quali-ty (lean) gas, and unstable operation. This alsomeans that gasifier users would be better off ifthey install an extraneous drying system orstore enough dry biomass for several days ofoperation.

Pyrolysis

This is the process in which heating of the biom-ass at high temperatures (usually in the range of350–450 ºC) results in the production of a mix-ture of gases, volatiles and vapors (termed ‘py-rolysis gases’).

The ‘ pyrolysis zone’ in a gasifier refers to thespace in which release of volatiles is nearlycomplete. The inflow into this space is mostly-dry biomass and steam and the outflow is py-rolysis gases and charcoal. Apart from knowncombustible gases like hydrogen, these gasesconsist of hundreds of organic compounds,water vapor, soot, etc. The origin of impurities,such as tar and particulate matter, in the pro-ducer gas can be traced to the pyrolysis zone.

Combustion zone

It is difficult to say what exactly burns in thecombustion zone of a gasifier. By the time theoriginal biomass reaches the combustion zone,much of it would have become charcoal;hence it is logical to assume that a large partof pyrolysis gases and a small part of the char-coal burn in the presence of oxygen in thiszone.

In the downdraft gasifier, flaming pyrolysis (i.e.,the burning of the pyrolysis gases) can actuallybe seen through the nozzles and the presence ofa bright orange or yellow glow is indicative ofhealthy and smooth functioning of the gasifier.The reaction in the combustion zone is usuallyrepresented as

C + O2 CO2

but this is an over-simplification of the process-es occurring in the zone.

58



Reduction Zone

This is the zone where the main reactionsleading to the formation of producer gasoccur. Again, the reactions occurring will bequite complex, but can be simplified as thefollowing:

Reduction or ‘Boudard’ reaction :

C + CO2 2 CO(carbon dioxide combines withchar to produce carbon monoxide)

Water gas reaction:

C + H2O CO + H2(water vapor passing over hotcharcoal produces carbon monoxideand hydrogen)

Shift reaction:

CO2 + H2 CO + H2O(carbon monoxide and hydrogenachieve a balance in this reversiblereaction)

Methanation reaction:

C + 2 H2 CH4(hydrogen combines with char toproduce methane)

One should note that oxygen is supposed to beconsumed completely in the combustion zone.

In the downdraft gasifiers, the combustionproducts, along with impurities, pass through ahigh-temperature zone prior to gasification, andhence the impurities get partially cracked.Hence the impurity levels in the final gases aresomewhat less. In the updraft gasifiers, thecombustion products go through relatively low-

er-temperature zones and cracking does notoccur. Hence the impurity levels in the final gasstream are much higher.

Tar and Particulate matter (TPM) in pro-ducer gas

These are the byproducts of biomass burning(and generally any solid-fuel combustion) andconsist of hundreds of organic compounds, soot,ash, and water vapor. These impurities are gener-ally not very different from what one sees in awood smoke. They are often thought of as sepa-rate entities, which can be ‘removed’ by a partic-ular method or equipment in a piecemeal waybut the understanding of these impurities is stillevolving. For convenience sake, one can classifythe impurities as low boiling tars (benzene, tolu-ene etc.—in fact not tars at all), high boiling tars,particles (both soot and ash) with a given sizedistribution ranging from sub-micron level to afew hundred microns, and aerosols which are aconglomeration of various impurities. TPM has adeleterious effect on the engine intake manifoldand ultimately damage the engine. Typically,lubricating oil deteriorates very fast, enginevalves get clogged and cylinder linings get dam-aged if there are excessive impurities in the gas.Hence, this need to be reduced to acceptablelevels in the producer has before it is admittedinto an engine. However, there is no clear under-standing of these ‘acceptable’ levels. A few Euro-pean and other research institutes seem to agreeon levels of 50 parts per million (ppm; approxi-mately same as mg/Nm3) for tar and 100 ppmfor dust (particulate matter). But most enginemanufacturers in India are wary of feeding pro-ducer gas into their engines and ask for zero im-purities. Recently one of them conceded to about5 ppm of tar. Raw gases from most downdraftgasifiers contain a few thousand ppm of impuri-ties and gases from updraft gasifiers can contain

59



an order of magnitude higher impurities. Hencethe gas cleaning systems required for updraftgasifiers are much more elaborate than thoserequired for downdraft gasifiers.

Added to the complexity of the nature of impu-rities, there were questions relating to quantita-tive determination until recently. Comparison ofresults from newer methods such as the Swissmethod with those from old methods such asthe filter paper method used extensively forfield testing and certification have opened upquestions regarding re-validation of existingcertified manufacturers.

The Gas Cooling and Cleaning train

This refers to a series of components to cool andclean the raw gas before it can be admitted to anengine. Hot gases have a lower calorific valuethan cold gases on a volumetric basis and hencethey have to be cooled in order not to derate thepower significantly. A variety of equipment suchas cyclones, wet cyclones, absorption columns(with and without packings), venturi scrubbers,saw dust filters, sand-bed filters, bag house fil-ters, or paper filters are used to achieve the re-quired cleaning. Most systems need water for theoperations, which usually results in generationof waste-water. Not much work has been doneon treatment and safe disposal of this waste-water. The impurities also clog the various com-ponents over time and hence lead to frequentmaintenance problems. Also, if the train is toolong or complicated, the pressure drop across thesystem is too high, requiring additional blowers.It generally is a tough proposition to achieve agood balance between gas cleaning goals, pres-sure drop, waste stream generation, parasiticpower, and need for excessive maintenance. Thedesign of the cooling and cleaning train has sofar been quite empirical and non-standard. How-

ever, the understanding of the nature of impuri-ties, both in qualitative and quantitative terms,has been improving in recent years—this mightpave the way for a more systematic design of thegas cleaning train.

Engines

Engines convert heat (or thermal energy) intoshaft power (mechanical energy), which canthen be used to generate electricity. The conver-sion routes from producer gas to electricity canbe many, including use of an external combus-tion engine like Stirling engine, use of steamturbine through a steam route, catalytic conver-sion to hydrogen and then feeding to a fuel cell,or use of an internal combustion engine. Inter-nal combustion engines are further classified asspark ignition (SI) engines and compressionignition (CI) engines. Now gas turbines are alsobeing considered as desirable alternatives.

So far producer gas has largely been used indiesel engines (a CI engine) in dual-fuel mode(i.e., simultaneously using diesel and producergas) giving a diesel replacement of about 70%.However, a relatively steep increase in dieselprices, considerations of access to diesel in re-mote villages, and considerations of self-reli-ance led to some efforts to develop a100%-producer-gas engine in recent years.These efforts include the use of natural gas en-gines with little modifications and the modifica-tion of diesel engines to run as SI engines.However, it should be noted that such modifica-tions have been made by research institutionsand gasifier manufacturers and do not have theconcurrence or stamp of engine manufacturersand designers. There seems to be a consensusthat fresh and serious efforts would have to belaunched to develop an engine “designed” for100%-producer-gas operation.

60



Typical operational and other problems ofgasifier systems

A typical starting problem of the gasifier is thatafter the ignition of the fuel bed, continuousand stable gas production does not occur, evenafter prolonged torching of the fuel bed. Thisalmost always happens if the fuel is very wet.Sometimes, even though the gasifier can bestarted without any problem, gas productionwill either cease or gas quality will deteriorate(lean gas, smoky, and unable to sustain combus-tion). The two main reasons for this are bridg-ing and clinker formation.

Bridging is caused if all the fuel in the vicinityof air entry is burnt out and no fresh fuel dropsinto the empty space thus created. There couldbe several reasons for this but unless the bridgeis broken by poking the fuel bed or shaking thegrate or the gasifier itself, gas production willnot resume. The operator usually resorts toopening the top of the gasifier and poking thefuel bed with a long rod. Some gasifier manu-facturers provide openings or ports on the sidesof the gasifier so that one does not have to use along rod. Some designs try to overcome thisproblem by insisting on a certain size of the fuelbut it is not very practical to obtain consistentsize always unless good care is taken for fuelpreparation.

Clinker formation occurs if the ashes containedin the biomass melt easily. Clinker usually de-velops over time, almost always near the noz-zles or grate where combustion occurs. Manytimes this occurs when the gasifier is re-startedafter allowing it to cool overnight. Clinker-for-mation is particularly difficult to handle be-cause it cannot be observed visually, and if it issuspected after the bed is completely charged, itis an arduous task to remove the fuel and thentry to break the clinker into pieces so that the

pieces can be pushed through the grate. Coco-nut shells with fiber, firewood with bark, cash-ew shells, and briquettes are usually susceptiblefor clinker formation.

Another problem which occurs is the build-upof ash on the grate, especially for high ash fuelslike rice husk. A very effective continuous ashremoval system has to be designed to tackle thisproblem.

In all the above cases, fresh fuel does not fallinto the combustion zone, and the circular chain‘ fuel-air-temperature’ breaks, and gas produc-tion ceases.

Another frequent problem interrupting stableand continuous gas production is related todeposition of impurities anywhere in the gascleaning and cooling train. Such depositionslead to an increase in pressure drop and reducethe gas flow rate and ultimately prevent opera-tion of the gasifier. Attempts to continue opera-tion by keeping the blower on and tinkeringwith the system without making an educatedguess or without a measured parameter thatindicates the location and nature of the problemoften result in accumulation of gases in the reac-tor leading to an explosion. Most gasifiers expe-rience explosions (or back-fire) at some pointduring their operating lifetime. Fortunately, theexplosions are not very strong but can unnervea new or untrained operator or user.

As gasifiers are high temperature reactors andthe resulting gases are corrosive in nature, it isquite logical that many kinds of material prob-lems occur and questions about the lifetime ofthe various components keep arising. Someattempts have been made to analyze theseproblems but there are no standard materialselection procedures or codes to be followed. Itis generally assumed (erroneously) that by us-

61



ing stainless steel (AISI 304) all materials prob-lems can be solved. Many manufacturers tendto cut corners by using mild steel (MS) withoutadequate thickness or by using scrap material.Any future attempts of technology or compo-nent standardization should include a thorough

study of the suitability of different materials fordifferent parts of the gasifier system. Followingearly leads by TERI to use high-temperaturecastables, many manufacturers use such mate-rials at present, but there are no set standardsyet.

62




A Review of Technology Developmentsin India

How much has the technology matured?

A frequent complaint with the gasifier system isthat it works as long as the team that developedit (usually a team of scientists) is attending to it.There are not many instances in which this kindof handholding has not occurred over a pro-longed period, sometimes covering the usefullife of the system. The handholding has beensomewhat less in systems that are sold on com-mercial basis to industrial users of thermal sys-tems (CO2 manufacture, MgCl2 manufacture,textile dying, rubber drying, etc). Some of thiscan be attributed to user-training needs— expe-rience shows that over time, serious users learnto grapple with the various maintenance prob-lems as much as they can. They might haveincentives to do so, having paid for the systemand from benefiting substantially from fuelsavings. On the other hand, there are users whocould not tackle all problems, which might alsomean that the developers themselves have notsolved the problems conclusively. In such cases,the system runs on and off, but finally stops.There are a few demonstration systems that arebeing run as showcases and hence have to bemaintained at any cost. And then there are sys-tems, which have been ‘acquired’ at marginal orno cost to the user and in such cases the systemsjust wither off, even though they were poten-tially viable. So it seems there is neither a sim-

ple nor single answer for the question of ‘tech-nology maturation.’ A clear answer mightemerge out of a comprehensive, professional,and dispassionate evaluation of the field perfor-mance of all the systems installed so far fordifferent applications. A limited study has beenconducted for the state of Haryana (Chakravar-thy et. al., 1991), but there is a need to carrysimilar studies for the rest of the country. Anattempt is, however, made in the following pag-es to enumerate some of the known technologyissues of biomass gasification.

Experience with different fuels

The maximum experience has been with woodchips. Here, as also stated in Annexure 1, prob-lems have been experienced with non-uniformsize, high moisture content, and presence ofbark. Problems related to bridging, excessive tarformation, and material failure seem to havebeen reduced significantly for gasifier sizes of10-200 kg/hr (roughly corresponding to 10–200kW for electrical systems) but for larger capaci-ties there are problems of uniform distributionof air through nozzles with the consequent coldspots and increased tar formation. Wood-likematerial such as Ipomea has been successfullyused over prolonged periods at Orchcha. Suc-

35 Information in this part is based on authors’ ownknowledge and experiences, unless otherwise stated.

Annexure 2 —Selected Aspects of the IndianExperience35

64



cess with other materials like mulberry sticks iseither limited or not completely known. Thesize of wood chips acceptable in the gasifierseems to depend on its design. The IISc designusually requires a very small size (~1 inch),Ankur and similar designs like AEW requireabout 2 inches, while TERI designs have operat-ed with larger sizes. The size of wood has impli-cations on the maintenance costs, especiallybecause wood is cut manually and the produc-tion rate for such cutting is quite low.

Some of the earliest experiences with non-woodbiomass were at TERI, which aimed to developdesigns for a variety of fuels in a project fundedby DNES in 1986. Results indicated that severalbiomass materials could be gasified if those arein briquetted form. The features which madethis possible were low specific gasification rate,better insulation of the reaction zone, and con-tinuous ash removal. In order to remove thenot-so-desirable briquetting process, a program(PowBIG, Powdery Biomass Gasification) wassubsequently launched at IISc for gasification ofpowdery biomass with significant MNES fund-ing, but this did not result in reliable designs.Currently many developers claim that theirgasifiers can use briquetted biomass but there isvery little field evidence to prove that briquettescan be used reliably over long durations. Therehave been recent efforts to gasify briquettesmade from a mixture of pulverized biomass,petroleum refinery wastes, pellets made frommunicipal wastes, and other residues but theseare confined to laboratory demonstrations.However, considering the large scope biomassbriquetting offers for utilizing residues that areotherwise not used economically, efforts shouldcontinue to develop and perfect gasifier designsfor this purpose.

There is a limited success in utilizing coconutshells and cashew shells, mainly for use in the

rubber drying factories in Kerala in recentyears, but problems of bridging and clinkerformation are not yet satisfactorily solved.

Gasification of rice husk had a special impor-tance ever since Al Kaupp did his landmarkresearch on the subject. Though rice husk isalready used in boilers and other devices, andhence there are some questions of availability instates like Punjab, there is a niche for powergeneration (and cogeneration) in rice millswhich dot the entire country. Except for someearly work at Bharathidasan University on flu-idized bed gasification of rice husk, there hasbeen no systematic developmental work fundedby MNES. Many manufacturers claim to havedeveloped either updraft (Grain ProcessingWorks) or downdraft (Ankur, AEW) gasifiersbut these have not been tested thoroughly. SomeIREDA-financed rice-husk-based power projectshave defaulted on payments claiming failure ofthe systems. A downdraft design using a rotat-ing grate has been developed at TERI also andis being tested. Rice husk has a high ash content(~23%), hence a continuous ash removal systemis needed for reliable operation. Besides, prob-lems of bridging can also be severe. Excessivetar formation has also been observed, as thetemperatures attained in the fuel bed are low.Evaluation of the presently available designs,development and standardization of new de-signs and some field-testing would be essentialfor mainstreaming of rice husk gasifier basedpower plants.

The elusive tar-free gas for engine operation

The crucial importance of clean gas for engineoperation has been stressed in Annexure 1. Ithas been mentioned that one of the problemshas been the lack of a standard method for mea-suring the impurities. As of now the Swiss

65

Annexure 2. Selected Aspects of the Indian Experience


method seems to be quite comprehensive. Thereare variations in solvents used and some instru-mentation followed by other labs. To the best ofour knowledge, only IISc and TERI use thismethod internally to measure impurities. Gasifi-er manufacturers who claim ultra pure gas oftenquote testing carried by some ‘renowned’ agen-cies or do not say anything about the method.The other, somewhat tricky situation in India isthat people who develop gasifiers are also thepeople who test the systems and this has impli-cations on mainstreaming.

Results of testing of several gasifiers are avail-able from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technol-ogy (ETH), Zurich. In addition, TERI hasconducted several measurements in-house.Some of the broad conclusions arising out ofthese results are as follows:

• There is a large variation in the impuritylevels in the raw gas for the same gasifierdesign.

• There is a large variation for the clean gasalso.

• Many times the impurity levels in the cleangas exceed the stipulated norms for engineoperation, which means that if only one testis conducted and the gasifier certified, thereis no guarantee that it will not spoil theengine at a later date.

• There are sometimes anomalies such as theimpurity levels in clean gas being higherthan those in raw gas.

• All the gasifiers tested are comparable inperformance, with respect to thermal effi-ciency and impurity levels. This means thatthere is no way of ranking any of these gas-ifiers as superior in comparison with others.

These observations suggest that tar-free gas forengine operation is still elusive and that morework needs to be done to solve the tar problemunambiguously. Development carried out in theGEF project involving TPS Termiska and otherpartners used catalytic methods for tar crackingbut such methods may not be suitable for smallgasifiers. Recent work carried out on two-stagegasification at DTI in Denmark shows promiseto produce tars of the order of 25 ppm in rawgas, thus eliminating the need for an elaboratecleaning train and hence deserves attention forfurther development and testing.

Prototypes and industrially engineered systems

Most gasifiers installed in India look either likeprototypes made in a small workshop or verycomplicated to operate and maintain. Almost allthe engineering of the gasifiers is carried outeither by the R&D institutions, fabricators, ormanufacturers, all of whom have only limitedindustrial design skills. The only exampleswhere the services of an industrial design centerwere utilized to improve the final design of anindustrial prototype were those of the silk reel-ing gasifier and the silk dyeing gasifier devel-oped in the TERI/SDC program. Gasifiersystems developed by TERI for other applica-tions did not have such inputs. While existinggasifier manufacturers and developers may notagree on the value of further industrial designinputs, but it is more than likely that gasifiersand associated cleaning systems would be betteroff in terms of finish, material optimization, lifeof components, ease of use and maintenance,etc. if input is taken from industrial designers.

Off-the-shelf and tailor made components

The complete gasifier “system” consists ofseveral items such as blower, pipes and ducts,

66



couplings, valves and insulation that are avail-able in the open market and certain tailor-made components such as burners, cyclones,scrubbers, mist separators and filters. An exer-cise to optimize the system for pressure drop,parasitic power, or cost is seldom done. Basedon past experience with gasifier systems, wefeel that such an exercise would reveal thatcertain components are unsuitable or inopti-mal for their intended use. Some examples:

• The blower that is generally used consumestoo much power for the flow rates and pres-sure drops required, but a blower with thedesired characteristics is either not availablein that size or is too expensive.

• Mild steel or stainless steel pipes and ductsare generally used because they are readilyavailable in the market, but are not the bestto transport hot and corrosive gases. In oneinstant, the pipe carrying the cooled andcleaned gas corroded fast and it was therust carried by the gas that damaged theengine, not the impurities present in thegas. In another instance, hot gases carriedover long distance corroded the stainlesssteel piping within a month.

• The burner is usually designed by the de-veloper or manufacturer with little or noexpertise on this aspect. The design of theburner is crucial to sustain the flame (pre-venting lift-off or gas burning inside thepipe) and to reduce emissions. Recent ex-periments have shown that CO levels in theflue gases could go up to 10,000 ppm if theburner is not designed properly. The burn-ers thus need careful design and standard-ization just as it has been done for LPGburners or natural gas burners.

• The couplings usually leak.

• The insulation is often poorly done.

• The gasifier system often has scanty instru-mentation and control, as mentioned inAnnexure 1.

Component and systems-integration aspects arethus central for future mainstreaming.

Issues of industrial safety and environmentalcompliance

Some important industrial safety issues pertainto exposure to high temperature surfaces, expo-sure to CO emissions, and prevention (and con-trol) of explosions and backfires. The first itemrequires good design of the insulating system(and just not wrapping glass-wool sheets as isdone too often) and the last two items requiregood instrumentation and control. Especially ifthe gas is burning inside a vessel (such as afurnace or a drier), there is a strong possibilitythat the flame might extinguish during the op-eration and with the blower on, combustiblegases will accumulate in the closed space. Sowhen the burner is restarted, an explosion takesplace. A control mechanism that stops the blow-er if the flame extinguishes or a pilot injection,which will always allow the gas to burn, is thushighly desirable. Similarly when people areworking in restricted spaces and if leakage ofgases occurs, they will be exposed to dangerousemissions. It is required that CO alarms be in-stalled in such situations but this is not usuallydone.

Environmental compliance issues pertain toemission levels of exhaust gases and wastewa-ter treatment. CO emissions from producer gasengines, especially 100% gas engines, can easilyexceed emission norms if catalytic convertersare not employed. Water is used for scrubbing

67



the gas and cooling and if the tar levels in thegas are very high (especially for updraft gasifi-ers), highly polluted wastewaters are produced.Chemical oxygen demand (COD) levels of up to70,000 mg/lit have been observed in wastewa-ters from gasifiers and these waste streams aregenerally not treated at present.

Engine development

As mentioned earlier, there are no engines de-veloped exclusively for producer gas use. Whennatural gas engines or diesel engines are con-verted to operate on producer gas, there areproblems of de-rating (loss of power), low con-version efficiency, speed control, knocking,emissions control, and engine life. 100% produc-er gas engines currently being claimed as devel-oped are really crude prototypes. The effortrequired for the development of reliable andefficient engines is likely to be quite substantialand will have to include more than cursoryinvolvement of engine designers and manufac-turers as is the case at present.

Testing and Certification

This is a contentious and delicate issue andseems to have reached some kind of a dead-lock. After review of previous methods of test-ing and deliberations lasting about 18 monthsand several meetings, MNES came up withtesting methods and standards that are elabo-rate, cumbersome, and rigid. After these exer-cises, the existing GARPS, that were also thetesting agencies, were terminated and hencethere is no institution at present to test andcertify gasifiers. The prickly issue was that thesame groups were developing, commercializingand certifying the systems. Gasifier manufac-turers who had their own designs or who gotthe designs from institutes other than GARPS

are either wary of them or feel they have beensubject to unfair, individualistic treatment.Meanwhile, the so-called ‘approved’ manufac-turers rule the scene and dominate the existingsubsidy market.

Under the circumstances, it seems absolutelyessential to:

• establish an independent, sustainable andnon-governmental agency for testing andcertification,

• simplify the testing methods and to estab-lish realistic testing standards,

• promote an open door policy to encouragemany more manufacturers and entrepre-neurs.

Visioning for Volume Production

The fact that several entrepreneurs and manu-facturers have started setting up and even sell-ing gasifiers commercially outside the MNESprogram in recent years proves the potential formainstreaming. It is possible that some entre-preneurs are making quick money at the risk ofbringing disrepute to the technology, but this isinevitable unless some serious corporate play-ers enter the manufacturing arena. Since thecomplete gasifier system is an energy deliverysystem, more than one set of corporate playersmay be needed—for example, volume produc-tion of the basic gasifier units may require onekind of firm and production of the engines avery different kind of firm. Some or all of thefollowing can happen on the path towards vol-ume production:

• Different designs of basic gasifier units ex-isting presently will probably merge intostandard designs, much like the collector

68



plate of a solar water heater or a babyboiler.

• A small number of large firms or a largernumber of smaller firms (depending on thecomplexity of the gasifier design for partic-ular applications) will become involved inthe manufacturing of gasifiers and/or ener-gy delivery systems.

• Basic costs of the gasifier units and enginesfor different capacities will be reduced sig-nificantly.

• Material problems would be sorted out anda standard “ bill of materials” for fabrica-tion would emerge.

• Industrial safety issues and environmentalcompliance would be dealt with.

• Sales networks would get established, withretailers and commission agents in place.

• Networks for installation, maintenance andrepair would improve.

• Supply chains for components for gasifiersas well as for the energy delivery systemswould appear.

• The subsidy markets would have been re-placed with commercial markets or at leastwith interest subsidies and tax breaks etc.

Major biomass gasifier RD3 institutionsin India36

Ankur Scientific Energy TechnologiesPrivate Limited37

Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies (AS-CENT) was set up in the year 1986 by Dr. B.C.Jain. Prior to the setting up of Ankur, Dr. Jainwas working in the Energy Division of JyotiIndustries and had gained significant experi-ence in the field of renewable energy (primarilybiomass gasifiers and solar). The setting up ofthe company was co-financed by Gujarat StateFinancial Corporation and the Indian Renew-able Energy Development Agency with a totalproject cost of close to 4 million Indian rupees(at 1998 prices). The turnover of the company isapproximately Rs.15 million, contributed almostequally by solar thermal systems and biomassgasifiers. The share of R&D expenditure in itstotal turnover is around 5 to 7 percent. This is inaddition to the R&D work supported at the unitby the Government of India and by USAIDthrough PACER (Program for Acceleration ofCommercial Energy Research). In its earlyyears, Ankur also had some R&D collaborationswith Bechtel.

Ankur’s involvement in the area of biomassgasification started with its participation in theNational Programme for Demonstration of Gas-ification Technology launched by the Govern-ment in 1987. Ankur installed about 185 systemsin the first phase of this program, of whichabout 150 were for irrigation pumping and therest for power generation (mostly 20 kW and 40kW). In the second phase of the demonstrationprogram initiated in the first half of 1990 andwhich lasted for two and a half years, another165 systems were installed with 133 of thembeing for pumping applications and the rest forpower. After 1990, the company shifted its focus

36 RD3 refers to research, development, demonstrationand deployment.37 Information in this section is based on interviewswith personnel from Ankur (see Annexure 4), internaldocuments, and in-house publications of Ankur andweb-based information (http://ankurscientific.com)

69



to development of larger-capacity gasifiers, i.e.,around 100 kW. At present, the company hasthe capability to build single unit sizes of 500kW capacity.

Ankur has concentrated on the development ofdowndraft biomass gasification systems. Thepresent aggregate capacity of gasifiers it hasinstalled stands close to 20 MW, which gives it amarket share of around 60 to 65 percent. Morethan 80 percent of Ankur’s gasifiers are in-stalled for power, while the rest are for thermalapplications—this includes chemical industries,brick kilns, ceramic tiles, annealing of tubes,biscuit factory, and tea and coffee drying. Ther-mal applications are mainly in the states of Gu-jarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. It also actedas the turnkey operator in the Gosaba and theKutch rural electrification demonstrationprojects funded by the government (discussedin A2.4—Selected Case Studies).

Ankur’s technical development efforts havebeen mainly directed towards improvements inperformance and system reliability as well asincreasing process automation of gasifier-basedsystems to ensure their continuous operation.Ankur has also been developing, with internalfunding, gasifiers in the capacity range of 4 to10 kW for power generation based on 100%producer gas, primarily for rural area applica-tions. The gasifiers are capable of handlingwoody biomass, cotton stalk and corn cobs.System packages have been developed for irri-gation pumping (5-10 hp) and thermal applica-tions (cooking, small cottage industries, etc.). Itis also involved in the development of 100%producer-gas-based systems in the capacityrange of 30 kWe and above. These systems arebeing developed through a collaborative R&Dproject jointly funded by MNES and Ankur. Thesystems are currently based on naturally-aspi-

rated Cummins engine, but work is going on inadapting turbo-charged and after-cooled en-gines to run on producer gas. Yet another areaof development in 100 % producer gas basedsystems is coupling of the gasifiers to high-speed gas turbines. As part of a collaborativeresearch work with a US-based partner, a 200kW gasifier has been shipped to test run high-speed turbines on producer gas.

DESI Power/NETPRO38

Decentralised Energy Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.(DESI) Power was set up in 1995 with an objec-tive to promote decentralized power stationsbased on renewable energy. It is a joint venturebetween Development Alternatives (DA), TARAand DASAG India, not-for-profits working inthe field of sustainable technologies.39

DESI Power is licensed to use the gasifier tech-nology developed at IISc, Bangalore. The li-censed manufacturer of IISc technology isNETPRO Renewable Energy (India) Ltd. (NET-PRO), which is a sister concern of DESI power.NETPRO was set up in 1994 to design, manu-facture and supply biomass gasification plants

38 Information in this section is based on interviewswith personnel from DESI Power and NETPRO (seeAnnexure 4), internal documents, and in-house publi-cations of DESI power & web-based information(www.desipower.com)39 DA was set up in 1983, and is a not-for-profit or-ganization registered under the Societies RegistrationAct of Government of India. The DA group includesDESI power, TARAhaat Ltd. (a company working toestablish internet based services for rural India), andTARA (a company that manufactures and marketsproducts designed by DA or any other source). DASAGIndia is the Indian arm of the Swiss engineering firm,DASAG, which is primarily active in the area of re-newable energy.

70



in association with IISc and DASAG EnergyEngineering. DASAG, a Swiss company, wasthe original licensee of IISc for the 100 kW rangeand undertook the re-engineering and designimprovements of the gasifier based powerplants. In addition, DASAG coordinated thedevelopment, pilot, and field-testing activitiesin India and Switzerland and undertook thetechnical and financial packaging of projects forthe commercialization of the technologies.

NETPRO is one of the approved manufacturerslisted by MNES. NETPRO also assists in mar-keting of the technology and provides perfor-mance guarantee to the users. All fabricatedequipments for the gasifier-based system aremanufactured and tested at NETPRO’s facilityat Trichi and the complete package is then trans-ported by trucks to the customer site.

DESI Power focuses on local decentralized ener-gy services provision. Its orientation is towardspromoting, packaging, building, and ultimatelytransferring power projects to local ownership,and generally receives external funding supportfor setting up these projects. DESI Power aimsto supply electricity and energy services to twodistinct decentralized energy markets—captivepower plants for small-scale industries andinstitutions, which depend on diesel generators;and Independent Rural Power Producers (IR-PPs) for villages and semi-urban areas. DESIPower is following the EmPower (Employmentand Power) model that intends to provide elec-tricity and energy services to villagers and ruralenterprises using a cluster approach. Here thecluster is formed by a number of power plantsand linked micro-enterprises in neighboringvillages, and the target is to build a capacity ofat least a MW in geographical proximity so thatthat each group generates an adequate financialbase to maintain the ‘cluster center.’ A two-year

development and consolidation program isunderway with support from the Shell Founda-tion to quantify the results from ongoing dem-onstration projects and make them available forlarge-scale replication of this model.

Seven DESI power projects based on biomassgasification technology have also been set upunder the Actions Implemented Jointly (AIJ)mechanism. The objectives of these AIJ projectsare to demonstrate and quantify carbon emis-sion reductions. Almost all of DESI Power/NET-PRO’s projects have been on a non-commercialbasis and have been supported by externalgrants from donor agencies and foundations,government subsidies and internal funding.

Indian Institute of Science40

The technology development efforts in the areaof biomass gasification at the Indian Institute ofScience (IISc) began in 1979. The group’s initialefforts, focusing on low power gasifiers, result-ed in the development of an open-top gasifierbased on a laboratory model of Reed and Mark-son. Engineering inputs from design of clean-ing/cooling systems of existing closed-topdesigns were integrated into the new open-topdesign and the IISc gasifier system with twinstainless steel shell was eventually developedinto the “Mark I’ product for operation withdiesel engines.

Most of the initial experience at IISc was gainedin the development of 3.7 kWe systems for elec-

40 Information in this section is based on interviewswith researchers from IISc (see Annexure 4), internaldocuments, in-house publications of Central Gasifica-tion & Propulsion Laboratory, IISc, and web-based in-formation (http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in)

71



trical generation and mechanical drive. Thisdevelopment program received a boost by theintroduction of a National Programme for Bio-mass Gasification. IISc was also designated as aGasifier Action Research Centre (GARC) by theMNES and hence undertook a number of re-search projects under its sponsorship.

The gasifier design ultimately developed at IIScis of the ‘open-top reburn throatless downdraft’design. The open-top design enables adjustmentof the reaction zones by air feeding and gasgeneration with very low tar content. The gasifi-er is also designed to handle a variety of feed-stock—weeds, coconut shells, sawdustbriquettes, rice husk briquettes and cane trashbriquettes.

There are over 30 units of power gasifiers basedon IISc Technologies in India and three unitsoutside India (one in Switzerland and two inChile). The first field demonstration of decen-tralized power generation using wood gasifica-tion technology developed at IISc has been inoperation in a village in southern India calledHosahalli in the southern state of Karnatakasince 1988. The aim of the project was to dem-onstrate the techno-economic feasibility of en-ergy forest-wood gasifier based system formeeting the lighting and shaft power needs ofnon-electrified villages. The design was at itsdevelopmental stage during the experimentand therefore it served the purpose of monitor-ing the performance of the gasifier. The secondfield demonstration of rural electrification wasin 1996 in a neighboring village. The executionof these projects was by ASTRA (Application ofScience and Technology to Rural Areas) at IISc.The experiences of these electrification projectsare described elsewhere in this report. IISc gas-ifiers have also been utilized in a number ofthermal applications.

Current ongoing R&D activities at IISc include afocus on utilization of a variety of agro-residuesin briquette form for gasification. Work is alsounderway on the development of 100 % pro-ducer gas systems as is an effort on advancedgasification (high pressure gasification at elevat-ed temperature) under an MNES-sponsoredproject with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited—this is for a 100 % producer gas system coupledto a gas turbine. Indian Institute of ChemicalTechnology (IICT) Hyderabad, and Indian Insti-tute of Technology (IIT), Madras are also part-ners on this project.

IISc is also an equity holder in an Indo-Swissjoint venture company, NETPRO (see DESIPower/NETPRO section).

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)41

TERI researchers were first trained on gasifiersat the Jyoti SERI in 1982—these were the firstgroup of people trained there. The researcherscame back and constructed a 5 horsepower gas-ifier in 1984 at TERI’s Field Research Unit(FRU), then at Pondicherry. This effort wasfunded by TERI, with the FRU providing thehardware component as well as manpower.

In 1985, TERI consolidated its offices andmoved them to Delhi. TERI researchers builtanother gasifier there and also set up an effortfocused on characterization of biomass andstudies on gasifiability of different fuels. Aboutthis time, TERI also undertook a study to devel-op a renewable energy plan for the Andaman &

41 Information in this section is based on the personalexperience of one of the authors (VVNK), internaldocuments, in-house publications of TERI, and web-based information (www.teriin.org/)

72



Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands for the Plan-ning Commission that included a focus on gas-ifiers. It also undertook a study to evaluate thepotential of gasifier systems for the plantationindustry. Simultaneously, it carried out a studyfunded by FAO to evaluate the potential of bio-mass briquetting.

TERI started work on a series of project in thelatter part of the 1980s. It began a project withDepartment of Science and Technology (DST)funding on efficient use of biomass in carda-mom curing. It also received a project fromMNES to develop a 7kW non-wood gasifiersystem for mechanical and electrical applica-tions. The field-testing of this system was car-ried out in the village Dhanvas in Haryana. Toovercome difficulties in handling different agro-residues, TERI developed an integrated briquet-ting-gasifier system.

TERI did not put any systems in the field dur-ing the MNES irrigation-power gasifier pro-gram since they did not feel that the gasifierswere ready yet for implementation, as a numberof issues still needed attention, especially tarand materials problem. TERI subsequently en-gaged on a project to scale their gasifiers up to40kW, which they felt was the minimum scale

for economic viability, following on their Dhan-vas experience. A 50 kW gasifier system cur-rently provides electricity to the TERI RETREATfor training. TERI was one of the first institutesto develop and test a small (5 kW) 100%-pro-ducer-gas-engine system. A second prototype iscurrently being tested and will be deployed to aremote village in Orissa for a joint field-testingwith Gram Vikas, an NGO with substantialexperience in the area of village-level develop-ment.

In 1994, with support from the Swiss Develop-ment Cooperation (SDC), TERI launched aprogram for inducting gasifier systems intothe silk industry. Several types of gasifierbased silk reeling ovens and silk dyeing unitswere developed, field-tested, and disseminat-ed. At the same time, a collaborative projectwith ISPS (Indo-Swiss Project, Sikkim)launched gasifier-based systems for cardamomcuring. Initial successes with these thermalapplications led to several other applicationsthroughout the country, such as rubber drying,institutional cooking, brick drying, and crema-toria. TERI licensed its designs to 6 differentmanufacturers who have installed a cumula-tive capacity of about 10 MW(th) so far.

73



Power applications

Captivepower

Ankur Forest DevelopmentCorporation, West Bengal

Type ofapplication

Supplied/designed by

1 x 30 kVA Woodybiomass

Place of installation CapacityBiomassfeedstock

Energy Park, West Bengal 3 kW

College of Tech. & AgriculturalEngineering, Rajasthan

10 kW

Institution (Muni Seva Ashram)Gujarat

1 x 350 kW

2 Firms in Gujarat 1 x 200 kW2 x 60 kW

2 Textile units in Gujarat 1 x 120 kW1 x 60 kW

4 cold storage units in UttarPradesh

3 units with 1 x 100 kW capacityeach1 unit with 1x 200 kW capacity

9 rice mills in West Bengal 1 x 40 kW1 x 100 kW3 firms, 1 x 120 kW each2 firms. 1 x 150 kW each1 x 200 kW1 x 250 kW

Rice husk

2 firms in Uttar Pradesh 2 firms each with 1 x 60 kW

IISc Manufacturer of electricalinsulation boards, filter gradepaper and allied products,Karnataka

500 kW solid bio-residuesuch asmulberrystalk

Navodaya Vidyalaya, Karnataka 100 kW N.A.Ruralelectrification

Ankur Gosaba island, Sunderbans,West Bengal

5 x 100 kW Woodybiomass

Chhotomollakhali, Sunderbans,West Bengal

4 x 125 kW

Tripura 4 x 250 kW


Illustrative list of application-wise biomass gasifier installations42

42 Information sources: (1) Internal documents & in-house publications from institutions such as Ankur,NETPRO, DESI Power, TERI, and IISc, (2) Web-based

information: http://ankurscientific.com, http://www.desipower.com, http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in, http://www.teriin.org

74



Power applications (continued)

IISc Hoshalli village, Karnataka

Type ofapplication


20 kW Woodybiomass

Place of installation CapacityBiomass

feedstock

Ungra village, Karnataka 20 kW

Hanumanthanagara, Karnataka 20 kW

Port Blair, A&N islands 100 kW

Karavatti, Lakshwadeep island(proposed)

250 kW

Otherelectrificationprojects

100 kW

IIT Delhi, Mechanical Engg 12 kW

DESI power Badhadhara,Orissa

100 kW

Dewan Estate, Karnataka 50 kW

Desi Power Mahanadi, Orissa 120 kW

Dev Power Corporation, TamilNadu

120 kW

GB Engg Enterprises, TamilNadu

120 kW

DESI Power Kosi Ltd, Bihar 50 kW

DESI Power, Baharbari, Bihar 50 kW

N.A.

Woodybiomass

Woodybiomass

DA/DESIPower/NETPRO

N.A.

Desi Power Orchha (P) Ltd,MP

Woodybiomass

N.A.

SKET, Phase I, Karnataka 120 kW

SKET, Phase II, Karnataka 120 kW

MVIT, Phase I, Bangalore 120 kW WoodybiomassMVIT, Phase II, Bangalore 120 kW

Varlakonda, Karnataka 50 kW N.A.

GB Food Oils, Tamil Nadu 120 kW

V.I.T Vellore, Tamil Nadu 120 kW

75



Themal applications

Ankur CO2 manufacturing, Gujarat


1 x 150 kW Woody biomass

Place of installation Capacity Biomass feedstock

6 ceramic firms in Gujarat One firm with 1 x 300 kW and1 x 500 kW units;One firm with 1 x 300 kW unit;Four firms with 2 x 300 kWunits

8 firms in Gujarat One firm with 1 x 10 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 20 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 40 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 60 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 100 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 300 kW unit;One firm with 2 x 300 kW unit;One firm with 1 x 500 kW unit;

Industrial abrasivesmanufacturing unit, TamilNadu

1 x 500 kW

Firm, Maharashtra 1 x 500 kW

Ankur Firm, West Bengal 1 x 100 kW Rice husk

IISc M/s Agro Biochem, Karnatakafor marigold flower drying

1 MW Woody biomass

ThermalCentral Building ResearchInstitute, Roorkee, UttarPradesh

800 kW N.A.

Tea drying, Bangalore 1.5 MW

TERI (throughseveralmanufacturers)

CO2 manufacturing, Junagarh,Gujarat

2 x 150 kW Fire wood

Manufacture of magnesiumchloride, Kharagodha, Gujarat

2 x 150 kW Firewood

Silk dyeing, Bangalore 13 x 20 kW ,,

Green brick drying, Palghat,Kerala

1 x 20 kW


,,

Rubber drying, Kerala andTamil Nadu

6 x 100 kW Rubberwood,coconutshells,cashew nutshells

Silk reeling, Karnataka andTamilnadu

30 x 10 kW Firewood

76



Themal applications (continued)

Cardamom curing, Sikkim,Bhutan


~150 x 20 kW ,,

Place of installation Capacity Biomass feedstock

Institutional cooking, BeasSatsang, Punjab

1 x 100 kW

Cooking in tribal school, GramVikas, Berhampur, Orissa

1 x 10 kW

Bamboo mat factory, GramVikas, Orissa

1 x 20 kW

Rice mill, Orissa 1 x 20 kW

Drying of mushroom andmahua flowers, Pradan, MP

1 x 10 kW ,,

Food processingl (Tooty-frooty) factory, Bangalore

1 x 20 kW ,,

Melting of Lead in a batteryreclamation factory, Bangalore

1 x 20 kW ,,

Crematorium, Nagarik SewaMandal, Ambernath,Maharashtra.

1 x 100 kW

Puffed rice making, Dharwar,Karnataka

1 x 10 kW ,,

Khoya making, Rajastan 1 x 10 kW ,,

Steel re-rolling, Haryana 1 x 100 kW ,,

AEW N.A. N.A.

Rubber drying, Kerala 1 x 100 kW

Cosmo Several

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

Cooking in hostels, jails (A.P.and T.N.)

Steel re-rolling, Raipur

Radhe Industries Ceramic firms, Gujarat Several

Harris Rubber drying, Kerala 6 x 100 kW

77



Selected Case Studies

Small and Medium Enterprises

INDUSTRIAL GAS PRODUCTION43

Mahabhadra Industrial Gases, a bottled carbondioxide (CO2) manufacturing plant located inGujarat, uses a downdraught gasifier developedby Ankur. The system, with a capacity of 150kW, has been operating since 1993, and is some-what unique in that the producer gas is not onlyused for process heat applications but alsoserves as a raw material from which CO2 is ex-tracted. The gasifier application has led to im-provements in the product quality as theproducer gas is a better feedstock for CO2 ex-traction than the kerosene being used before theinstallation of the gasifier. The manufacturingunit has completely substituted its kerosene andother liquid-fuel usage with producer gas fromthe biomass gasifier. Gasifier installation hasalso led to elimination of sulfur dioxide scrub-bing due to which there have been large gains tothe owner and the product quality has im-proved. The total investment cost for the gasifierwas Rs. 600,000 and MNES subsidized 20 per-cent of the cost. Gasifier installation led to in-crease in production capacity of the system from80-90 kg of CO2 per hour to 120 kg per houralong with elimination of diesel consumption of35 liters/hr. The savings in fuel cost alone areestimated to be over 60 percent. With savings inliquid fuel consumption as well as eliminationof the scrubbing process and overall improve-ments in plant productivity, the payback periodof the investment was eight months.

The owner of the firm does not experience anyproblems with respect to biomass supply. Woodsupply is from a plant named Babool that growsmainly on degraded land. It is delivered to thefactory in truckloads at a price of Rs. 1/kg and

dried out in the open in the factory premises.The the quality of the dried wood is judged vi-sually – there are no moisture meters for moni-toring the wood quality. A person is employedfor cutting the wood into specific lengths by amechanical saw cutter. The gasifier is fed every 2hours manually from sacks full of wood pieces.

At the time of installation, the technology sup-plier, Ankur, trained the users for a week in theoperation and maintenance procedures. Thefirm owner perceives the gasifier operation tobe relatively simple with a low level of skillrequirement and he has deployed existing plantpersonnel for its operation and maintenance.The user-manufacturer linkage is strong and themanufacturer’s participation in major mainte-nance activities is satisfactory. Regular mainte-nance requirements are perceived to below—problems are encountered only if thereare interruptions in gasifier operation and insubsequent start-up. Some periodic mainte-nance is required in repairing the constructionmaterial that gets corroded with operation. Theowner is considering installing an additionalgasifier unit for captive power generation toreplace grid power usage in the firm.

STEEL ANNEALING44

This is a steal annealing plant located in Gujaratthat has a gasifier installed for substituting fur-nace oil usage in its steel-annealing furnace. A60 kW gasifier was installed in 2002. The design

43 Information based on interviews (see Annexure4), and web-based information (http://ankurscientific.com).44 Information based on interviews (see Annexure4), and web-based information (http://ankurscientific.com).

78



of this gasifier unit is exactly the same as theone installed at Mahabhadra Industrial Gases,except for some minor modifications in the ashdisposal system- the unit has a system of con-tinuous ash disposal by a vibrating grate placedat the bottom of the gasifier and the ash ispumped out with the water stream. It is notdisposed off into an ash pond. Therefore thismethod saves on the cost of a water tank con-struction and also on the space required for atank installation, reduces water consumptionamount and makes the disposal process of asheasier. The additional cost is that of a motor.Burning of the producer gas at the burner at-tains temperature in the range of 950 to 1000degrees C, and is sufficient for the annealingoperations. There are no supplementary fuelrequirements for firing in the furnace. The mod-ified burners, compatible for burning producergas (burner design modifications are necessaryfor switching from liquid fuel to producer),were supplied by the gasifier manufacturer,Ankur. The capital cost for the gasifier installa-tion was Rs.3.75 lakhs. Its installation has com-pletely eliminated the furnace oil consumption,and resulted in a 25 percent savings on fuel cost.This translates into an annual savings of Rs.4lakhs for the user, with a payback period of lessthan a year.

As in the case of the industrial gas manufactur-er, the user perceives low skill requirements foroperating the gasifier unit. The unit performswell when run continuously, but problems areencountered in starting up the gasifier aftershutdown. The gasifier throat needs to be re-placed after every six months. For undertakingperiodic maintenance activities, the user has afive year Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)with Ankur. The manufacturer-user linkageseems to be strong—Ankur provides reliableassistance in solving technical problems.

There are no problems encountered in woodsupply—supply is reliable and the wood is ofgood quality. The same tree species, Babool issupplied to this firm too. The user is very wellware of biomass gasifier applications for powergeneration—but is unwilling to go for gasifierapplication for captive power requirements. Heperceives uncertainties with respect to the tech-nology reliability and high system costs.

RUBBER DRYING45

The Kerala govt. had given a 5-year subsidizedelectric supply to promote the rubber industryin the state. During this period, the subsidizedcost of electricity was Rs. 0.50/kWh. At the endof this period, the supply price was raised to Rs.2.5/kWh While the rubber industry protestedand went to court to protest against the removalof subsidies, it also realized that it was not in astrong legal position and was therefore lookingat other options. Many of them started shiftingover to diesel based driers.

During a trip to Bangalore, TERI researchers wereapproached by the owner of one of these rubberfirms who had heard of the success of the gasifierapplications. This person was interested in look-ing at gasifier installation possibilities in the rub-ber industry. After examining the application,TERI felt that an indirect heating system wouldbe best suited for this application. While such asystem would be complex and would cost Rs. 3million, it would have a payback period of 6months. This firm did not have the resources,though, to install such a system.

45 Information based on authors’ own knowledge andexperiences; TERI’s internal documents and in-housepublications.

79



TERI was subsequently approached by anotherrubber manufacturer, Bobby Abraham. . Hehad visited a number of installed units in Ban-galore and Gujarat and wanted to get into thebusiness of manufacturing gasifiers. He had anagreement with TERI that involved an upfrontfee as well as a royalty. He installed the firstgasifier in his own facility and made manyadditional developments in the process—forexample, he developed the process instrumen-tation for this system. He sold the second sys-tem to another crumb rubber manufacturer butthat one encountered many technical problems.For example, there was an explosion caused bydirect burning of gas without pilot burning ofdiesel. TERI then designed an external furnacewith the flue gases being then directed into thetunnel. Other modifications were also made.The passage of the high temperature flue gasesover long distances corroded the ducts—Bobbymoved to a different material to avoid thiscorrosion. He eventually sold 4 systemsthrough his enterprise Paramount Enviro-energies.

All in all, 12 systems have been installed inrubber drying units. Five of these have beeninstalled by a local entrepreneur independentlytrying to promote gasifiers for rubber industry.This was an updraft design, based on coconutshells, which was a cheap and easily availablebiomass resource. (Bobby’s design is less pol-luting than the others’—that’s a selling pointfor the former.) TERI also redesigned theirgasifiers to run on coconut shells as well ascashew nut shells (although the latter leads toa clinker problem). Additionally, given thehigh local labor costs, Paramount semi-auto-mated the gasifier feeding as well as the clin-ker breaking processes. The Rubber Boardcame into picture at this time and started giv-ing a subsidy of 25% to promote the dissemina-tion of these gasifiers.

CERAMIC TILE MANUFACTURE46

Ankur installed its first gasifier in a ceramic tileunit in Gujarat in 2001. Most of the ceramic tileunits use liquid fuels like kerosene and furnaceoil, and a few advanced units have roller kilnsthat use LPG. The owner of the unit where thefirst gasifier was installed was reluctant for fearof not reaching a temperature level sufficient forhis operations (1050–1100 °C). The furnace con-sumed 1500 litres of kerosene daily and a kero-sene replacement of only 50 to 70 percent wasplanned in the initial stages. Gasifier installa-tion led to a 90 percent reduction in the kero-sene consumption.

Fuel supply is from Prosopis Juliflora, a sturdyspecies that is found in saline/arid areas. Itsgrowth is highly prolific and encroaches uponagricultural lands. Therefore the government ofGujarat announced a policy a couple of yearsago for harvesting this species and containingits growth. This has reduced prices from Rs.1000 per ton to Rs. 500 to 600 per ton and thebiomass is readily delivered to the ceramicunits. For a representative ceramic tile unit, agasifier capacity of 300 kWe requires an invest-ment of Rs. 3 million. Kerosene consumptionbefore gasifier installation is estimated to be3,800 liters/day and the reduction in consump-tion after gasifier installation is 3,400 liters/day.The daily wood consumption is around 13,000kg. This results in a payback period of 4 to 5months for the unit. At present, there are fifteenapplications in a cluster of ceramic manufactur-ing units in Gujarat, and many of these havecrossed 10,000 hours of operation.

46 Information based on interviews (see in Annexure4), internal documents of Ankur, and web-based infor-mation (http://ankurscientific.com).

80



Based on these encouraging results, two otherfirms installed gasifiers in biscuit making andglazing furnaces- each gasifier resulted in a sav-ing of 1300–1500 liters per day of kerosene bysubstituting it with a wood consumption of 6MT per day (250 kg/hr/day of biomass con-sumption). The daily monetary savings wereestimated to be above Rs. 14,000 per gasifier andhas enhanced competitiveness of these firms.

Informal Enterprises

SILK REELING GASIFIERS47

The implementation of gasifiers in silk reelingenterprises had its genesis in a World Bank(WB)-led project to aid the sericulture industry.The improved silk reeling ovens being used inthe initial stages of the project were not per-forming well and TERI was initially invited todo an energy audit of these ovens. This workeventually led TERI to suggest the use of gasifi-ers for this application.

Using its own funds, TERI made a rough work-ing design of a gasifier-based silk reeling ovenin its workshop at Gualpahari. The Swiss Devel-opment Cooperation (SDC) funded a trial ofthis gasifier that was carried out in Hindupur.The system was based on a 10kg/hr. gasifier,with improvements being made during testing.The trial demonstrated that a gasifier-basedsystem could be used for silk reeling with 50%savings in firewood consumption. This systemalso resulted in productivity improvement—thesilk production increased by about 2% (whichwas substantial in financial terms, given the lowmargins in silk reeling). In addition, the qualityof the silk produced also improved. The im-provements in silk production as well qualitywere both unanticipated benefits. An additionalunanticipated benefit was the savings in water

consumption, which had financial implicationssince the silk reelers buy the water needed fortheir processing. Additionally, environmentalbenefits included an elimination of smoke andgenerally cleaner surroundings.

The further evolution of this prototype into anindustrial prototype involved, beyond numer-ous inputs from users, a number of actors in-cluding a SDC consultant, various research labs,the Industrial Design Center at IITB (for overalldesign improvements), and Kvaerner PowerGas (who provided technical inputs as well assuggestions for vendor development). Two sys-tems were subsequently placed with silk reelersin a dense cluster and testing was then carriedout for two years. At the end of the study in late1997 or so, it was found that the silk yield wasincreased by 3% (partly because of an innova-tion in the bath design). The entire sericulturesystem was patented as a package.

Despite the promise of these gasifiers-basedsystems, and the advantages offered by them,dissemination was hampered by a number ofreasons including the reluctance of many of theusers (including government agencies) to payfor them and by the disinterest in large financ-ing agencies in projects of such a small scaleindividually. Silk reelers were also consideredhigh-risk because of having defaulted on loansin the past. Although some systems were dis-seminated eventually under a subsidy schemeimplemented by the SDC SERI-2000 program,the scale of this dissemination was well belowthe potential.

47 Information based on authors’ own knowledge andexperiences, interviews (see Annexure 4), informationcomplied from TERI publications; Dhingra & Kishore,1999.

81



CARDAMOM DRYING48

TERI was first involved in cardamom dryingback in 1987. It carried out a project funded bythe DST to improve the efficiency of the carda-mom drying process in Kerala. This was a 2-year project in an experimental plant of theCardamom Planter’s Association. The efficiencyof the traditional drying process was 3%—con-verting this to a furnace coupled to a compactheat exchanger resulted in fuel savings of 55–65% as well as reduced drying times while re-taining the quality of the product.

In 1995, soon after TERI’s sericulture work start-ed, it was approached by SDC in connectionwith the Indo-Swiss Project Sikkim (ISPS)project. This project was mainly focused onhorticulture (the Sikkim Dept. of Horticulturewas ISPS’s partner on this effort). The state is amajor producer of cardamom where the produc-tion is dominated by small farmers with 2–3acres of land who dry their cardamom in indi-vidual small bhattis (ovens)— there are about60,000 bhattis in Sikkim.

The gasifier design had to consider the follow-ing constraints:

• No power was available; therefore no blow-er would be available, unlike the designused in the sericulture project;

• All the components had to be transportableon human backs since that was the onlymode of transport available; and

• ISPS also wanted to the gasifier to be cheapand wanted it to be made locally.

During laboratory experimentation, TERI cameup with a ‘natural draft’ gasifier that was initial-ly derived from a tandoor. The design was mod-ified to allow recharging during use, and it

required recharging every 4 hours. Since opera-tors were reluctant to carry out this task in themiddle of the night, a further modification wascarried out to increase the recharging time toevery 8 hours. The design was also based on asimple oil drum with a ceramic ring, both ofwhich could be carried on human backs andassembled locally. The final cost of the systemwas Rs. 10,000. Not only did it result in fuelsavings, the cardamom itself was of higherquality—the pods retained their reddish colorand their oil content was also 35% higher and ofbetter quality than the traditionally dried pods.

The first 10–15 systems were installed free ofcharge as demonstration units by ISPS. Afterthat, the Horticulture Department decided tosubsidize (with ISPS funding) a limited dissemi-nation of these gasifier-based systems wherebythe farmers would have to pay only 20% of thecosts. About 50–60 systems were disseminatedunder this program, although without any well-defined process to select recipients. The Dept. ofHorticulture eventually took over the programand provided a 50% subsidy that was eventual-ly utilized for the dissemination of some 100more gasifiers.

Captive Power

RICE HUSK GASIFIERS49

Around 6 MW capacity of rice-husk based gen-eration for captive power production has been

48 Information based on authors’ own knowledge andexperiences, interviews (see Annexure 4), informationcomplied from TERI publications; Mande et. al. 1999.49 Information based on interviews (see Annexure 4),internal documents of Ankur, and web-based informa-tion (http://ankurscientific.com).

82



set up in West Bengal, with most of these unitsbeing installed by a single manufacturer, Ankur.Rice mills usually meet their captive powerrequirements using grid power or diesel (withthe latter option, the cost of generation can be ashigh as Rs. 9–10/kWh). Electricity has a veryhigh share in the monthly expenditure in a ricemill. Setting up of gasifiers based on rice-husk,that is the by-product generated in the mill,offers a commercially attractive alternative formeeting captive power requirements. Rice millspay as high as Rs. 150,000 as monthly electricitybill. The payback period for investments in bio-mass gasifier for captive power generation in arice mill is around 12-18 months. Given thatmost of the installations are quite recent, it isdifficult to assess the performance of these unitsat this time.

An example of a rice-husk based gasifierproject:

A 250 kWe rice-husk based biomass gasifieris installed at Ma Bhabani rice mill at Bur-dawan in West Bengal. This utilizes aclosed-top throatless downdraft gasifiercoupled to a dual-fuel engine supplied byAnkur. Biomass fuel input requirement isaround 250 kg/hr. The system is usuallyoperated at a load of 180 kW for which thebiomass feed requirement is about 150 kg/hr. The gas cleaning procedure is more elab-orate for rice-husk based gasifiers as com-pared to those based on woody biomass asthe producer gas generated from rice-huskas feedstock has higher tar content.

The gasifier costs around Rs. 1.4 million,with an added cost of Rs. 150,000 for instal-lation. The diesel generator set (suppliedby Greaves) costs Rs. 1.2 million. There wasan additional cost of Rs. 230,000 associatedwith civil works construction. Hence, the

overall project cost was around Rs. 3 mil-lion. The MNES subsidy was Rs. 700,000.With the gasifier, the monthly electricitybill has been reduced from Rs. 35,000 to Rs.10,000. While the quality of electricity sup-ply from the grid was poor with low volt-ages and large voltage fluctuations, thecaptive generation from the gasifier hasresulted in much better electricity supply.By spring 2003, the system had operatedfor 1800 hours. The plant is operated bythree skilled personnel per shift—they areresponsible for feeding the gasifier at regu-lar intervals and for ash removal. The plantpersonnel are adequately trained for un-dertaking O&M and hence there is no needfor hiring any additional personnel. Theplant owner feels that the gasifier installa-tion has increased the competitiveness ofthe unit.

Rural areas – remote villages

HOSAHALLI AND HANUMANTHANAGARA EXPERI-ENCES IN VILLAGE ELECTRIFICATION50

Hosahalli and Hanumanthanagara are villagesin Tumkur district in Karnataka that utilizeelectricity generated by 20 kW woody-biomassbased gasifier systems connected to a dieselengine generation system. The electricity pro-vides lighting, water supply for domestic useand flourmill operation. Hoshahalli has 35households with a population of 218 andHanumanthanagara has 58 households with apopulation of 319. The former village was non-electrified while the latter had only 43 percentelectrified households before the installation of

50 Sources: Someshekhar et. al., 2000; Srinivas et. al.,1992.

83



the gasifiers. Both projects were executed byASTRA (Centre for Application of Science andTechnology for Rural Areas), IISc and use gasifi-ers designed by IISc.

The project at Hoshahalli (which was the firstrural electrification demonstration project in thecountry) was started in 1988 and implementedin five phases—raising energy forest for woodsupply and installing a wood gasifier-dieselgenerator plant; providing electricity for light-ing to all households; pumping drinking water;installing a flour mill and pumping water forirrigation. It took about a year to stabilize thefirst two phases and the fourth and fifth phaseswere implemented in the fifth year.

The Hosahalli system is reported to have oper-ated for 96 percent and 94 percent of the daysduring 1998 and 1999, respectively while inHanumanthanagara, the system is reported tohave operated for 86 percent and 90 percent ofthe days during the same period. Non-availabil-ity of operators, diesel, and occurrence of somesocial problems resulted in non-operation onthe remaining days. Though the system wasoperated for most of the days, the load on thesystem was very low leading to a capacity utili-zation of 7 percent in Hosahalli and 3 percent inHanumanthanagara (though there were someattempts to increase the load by setting up ofirrigation-pumping activities based on the gas-ifier). The systems operated in dual-fuel modefor around 70 to 75 percent of the operatingdays. The plants were run in diesel-only modedue to shortages in dried, chopped and sizedwood that were caused by non-availability oflabor for cutting wood or due to rain preventingdrying of wood. Measures to overcome theseproblems included using a mechanical woodchipper to give better fuel quality, and drying ofwood using exhaust heat from engines. Also, a

maintenance contract was given to an entrepre-neur.

The approach adopted in the villages was not tosell electricity used, but to charge for the servicesprovided. The rates for the services were fixed inconsultation with village community. For light-ing, the rate was Rs.5/bulb-point/month (for a40W fluorescent light tube for 4 hrs./day requir-ing about 5 kWh/month). Water supply fromprivate taps was charged at Rs.10/month/household and milling of grain was charged atRs. 0.5 to 0.8/kg of grain. While initially lowtariffs were fixed in consultation with the villagecommunity, they were raised at later stages ofproject implementation following growth inincome-generating activities with the setting upof irrigation water supply and non-agro basedactivities. The recovery of fee-for-service in thesevillages ranged between 52 to 76 percent during1998 and 1999, during the time the study wasconducted.

THE GOSABA RURAL ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT51

The first rural electrification demonstrationproject in the country considered to be a suc-cess is at Gosaba, an island of about 156 sq.kms. area in the Sunderbans area in the state ofWest Bengal in 1997. Gosaba was selected as asite for rural electrification based on decentral-ized supply sources, as this was the only optionfor this region; the area also has an abundanceof biomass resources. The project was imple-mented by WBREDA in association withMNES, Sunderban Development Department(the local development body), Forest Depart-

51 Information based on interviews (see Annexure 4),internal documents of Ankur & WBREDA, and web-based information (http://ankurscientific.com).

84



ment and South 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad(local administration). MNES subsidized 75percent of the project cost and state govern-ment gave the remaining. The state electricityboard has set up the distribution network,with financing from WBREDA.

The total electricity generation capacity is 500kW, with five individual gasifier-based units of100 kW capacity each. The gasifiers are closed-top downdraught systems based on woodybiomass, supplied by Ankur. The plant has twodual-fuel engines that are synchronized withthe system and can be operated in parallel. Theentire project cost was Rs. 10 million, includingsetting up of T&D network. The investment forthe distribution network in Gosaba amountedto Rs. 1.8 million. The capital cost for the gasifi-er installation approximates Rs. 25 million perMW. The transmission and distribution linespans over a length of 6.25 kms of high-tensionlines and 13.67 kms of low-tension lines, with acost of around Rs. 175,000 per km. The electrici-ty generation in the plant is at 400V. Within theT&D network, around 45 to 50 consumers areconnected every kilometer. The average T&Dlosses are only 4 percent.

There are at present around 900 consumers whoare being provided with power 16 hours a day.In the initial stages of the project, a single 100kW gasifier unit was installed as the existingload at that time was just around 10 to 20 kW.The villagers were reluctant to participate andthere were only around 25 consumers of power.It took a while for the local people to be con-vinced of the potential benefits and the loadgrowth took around a year. The operating loadof the system is 300 kW—therefore, a maximumof three gasifier units are operating at one pointof time and the other two units are kept asstandby.

The average daily generation is 950 units overthe period of 16 operating hours. The tariff fordomestic consumers is at Rs. 5/kWh, for com-mercial shops and establishments it is Rs. 5.50/kWh and for industrial consumers Rs. 6/kWh.The average household consumption is in therange of 1 to 3 units per day. The householdswith electricity supply connection have to pay afixed charge of Rs. 75 per month in addition tothe variable charges for the units consumed.The monthly revenue generation at Gosaba isaround Rs. 160,000. There have been no default-ers in payment of electricity bills and no elec-tricity thefts are reported. The charges areaffordable to the users and they are willing topay the price for reliable electricity supply. Be-fore the Gosaba project, people in this area werepaying around Rs. 9/kWh for diesel-based gen-eration. The state nodal agency’s assessment isthat demand for electricity among villagers isincreasing steadily as more local industries arecoming up.

The plant is run by a local co-operative society,which receives funds from WBREDA. This co-operative, which is responsible for ensuringbiomass supply, daily plant operation andmaintenance, and financial record keeping. Forundertaking renovation, repair and mainte-nance of plants, around 75 percent of the financ-ing comes from the co-operative and the restfrom MNES. The success in running this ruralenergy co-operative is partly attributed to thehistory of success in co-operative movements inthat area.

Ankur undertook turnkey operation for theproject and at present intervenes in major main-tenance and retrofitting functions. It has trainedlocal people in plant operation and mainte-nance. It also periodically reviews plant opera-tion. One of its service engineers based ineastern India supervises these activities. The

85



state nodal agency, WBREDA, functions as theTechnical Backup Unit for the project. It pro-vides both technical and non-technical supportfor running the system, monitors the operationof the plant and performance of the plant per-sonnel. It periodically conducts tests for theplant operators to monitor their performance.

Rural areas – grid-interfaced generation

BIOMASS ENERGY FOR RURAL INDIA (BERI)52

Biomass Energy for Rural India (BERI) is a $8.6million UNDP/GEF project with co-financingfrom ICEF USA, and state and central govern-ments in India.53 The five-year project whichstarted in mid-2001 is based on the research,development, and small-scale demonstrationsover the past 10 to 15 years in Hosahalli andHanumanthanagara villages.

The executing agency for the project is the De-partment of Rural Development, Governmentof Karnataka while the implementing agency isthe Karnataka State Council of Science andTechnology (KSCST), Bangalore. The UNDP/GEF, ICEF, and the Government of Karnataka(GoK) are providing financial resources for theproject while the MNES is providing nationalsupport for policy, planning and financial incen-tives towards investment cost for biomass gas-ifier power generation system and communitybiogas electricity system. GoK will also provideoverall administrative as well as logistics sup-port to the project.

BERI aims to reduce CO2 emissions through thepromotion of bioenergy as a viable and sustain-able option to meet the rural energy serviceneeds in India. One of the objectives of the fullproject is to demonstrate the commercial viabili-ty of the concept of bioenergy systems. The

project ultimately aims to provide decentralizedbioenergy technology in the form of rural ener-gy services for lighting, drinking water supply,cooking gas, irrigation water supply, and mill-ing. It also intends to help in removing key bar-riers to large-scale adoption andcommercialization of bioenergy technologypackages. Two important features of the projectare replicability and sustainability.

The project will be implemented mainly in acluster of about 24 villages of Tumkur district inKarnataka. The benefits are targeted to reachsome 25,000 families or around 15,000 people inthe five taluks of Tumkur, among them margin-al farmers and rural entrepreneurs such as bio-gas operators, flour mill operators, mulberryand silkworm rearers. The project targets settingup of 1.2 MW of total woody biomass gasifierbased system with a generating potential of4,800 MWh of bioelectricity annually. A gasifier-system based on 100% producer gas will bedemonstrated. A dual-fuel system too will be setup, but this seems to be financially unviabledue to the high cost of diesel. Community bio-gas plants will be set up for meeting cookingenergy requirements. Power supply will bethrough the existing distribution network andthe extra power will be fed into the grid at aprice of Rs.3.32/kWh.54 The recovery fromselling power to the grid will be a key determi-nant of the project’s financial sustainability.

52 Information based on interviews (see Annexure 4),project documents, and web-based information(www.undp.org.)53 The project comes under the GEF Operational Pro-gram 6: “promoting the adoption of renewable energyby removing barriers and reducing implementationcosts”.54 This tariff is fixed by MNES.

86



BERI will obtain its biomass supplies from twosources: dedicated energy plantations and sup-ply from existing market. For the latter, it in-tends to set up 400–500 ha of short rotationforest plantations, 300–400 ha of agro-forestrysystems, 200–300 ha of community forestry,400–500 ha of orchards and 100–125 ha of highinput forestry. These will be planted on waste-lands, private lands, and government and com-mon land.

BERI also proposes to set up a ‘Bioenergy Ser-vices Enterprises’ as a rural energy service com-pany (RESCO). The project is based on the‘fee-for-service’ concept – the pricing will be onthe basis of energy services provided and notfor electricity units consumed. By the end of theproject period, the goal is to ensure that the fee-for-energy service approach will be able to re-cover all costs of the bioenergy systems.Linkages will be made with micro-credit organi-zations, NGOs and other village level moneylending groups for enabling cost recovery.

Two models have been proposed to ensure fi-nancial sustainability of the project after projectcompletion. These are:

• Commercial bank – entrepreneur system: Underthis system all the project assets and compo-

nents will be transferred to a commercialbank. The bank will identify entrepreneursand provide working capital and the entre-preneurs in turn will repay the bank fromthe revenue collected from the beneficiaries.The profits or the surplus income earned bythe bank will be converted into a ‘specialfund’ to provide start-up capital to entre-preneurs to set-up bioenergy systems innew villages.

• Panchayat (local government) – entrepreneurs/NGO system: Here all project assets will betransferred to the Panchayats, in consulta-tion with the Zilla Parishad (District Ad-ministration). The Zilla Parishad willprovide the financial guarantee to the Pan-chayats who in turn will take responsibilityfor the project. The Panchayats will in turnidentify NGOs or entrepreneurs and con-tract out the operation, maintenance andmanagement of the bioenergy system for anagreed technical fee. The Panchayats willown the assets. The identified NGO or en-trepreneur will transfer the surplus incometo the Panchayats. The surplus income willbe converted into a ‘special fund’ to providestart-up capital for initiating bioenergyproject in other villages.


Summary of analyses55

Annexure 3 —Economic and Financial Analyses

Table A3.1.1: Summary of analysis for thermal applications

(a) Thermal applications of gasifiers in SMEs§


Incremental costs due to gasifier installation

and operation


Installation costs ($) 375 1250

Fixed O&M costs ($/yr) 188 625

Additional manpower costs for gasifier operation ($/month) No additional requirement 42

Blower operating costs (¢/hr) 4 8

SME units with existing liquid fuel consumption

Substitution of liquid fuel by biomass (litres/hr) 9.4 31.3

Savings in fuel costs ($/hr) 4 13



SME units with existing solid biomass burning

Reduction in biomass consumption (kg/hr) 30 100

Savings in fuel costs ($/hr) 1 3


Payback (years) 2 2§ An average 8 hours of daily operation is assumed for a firm in the SME category

88



Table A3.1.1: Summary of analysis for thermal applications

(b)Thermal applications of gasifiers in informal sector†


Incremental costs due to gasifier installation and

operation


Installation costs ($) 125 375

Fixed O&M costs ($/yr) 63 188

Additional manpower costs for gasifier operation ‡

($/month/gasifier unit) 2 4

Blower operating costs (¢/hr) 2 4

Service fees for the entrepreneur ($/month/gasifier) 5 10

Informal units with existing liquid fuel consumption

Substitution of liquid fuel by biomass (litres/hr) 3.1 9.4

Savings in fuel costs ($/hr) 1.3 3.9



Informal units with existing solid biomass burning

Reduction in biomass consumption (kg/hr) 10 30

Savings in fuel costs ($/hr) 0.2 0.6


Payback (years) 4 3† An average 8 hours of daily operation is assumed for a firm in the informal sector.‡ Assumption: a single semi-skilled person services either 20 gasifier units of 10 kW each, or 10 gasifier units of 20 kW each, in a clusterand derives a monthly earning of $42.

89

Annexure 3. Economic and Financial Analyses


Table A3.1.2: Summary of analysis for levelized costs of power generation

(a) Base case results for large captive power applications (¢/kWh)

Technologyoptions Capital Installation Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel Grid supply Total

MDF 1.54 0.24 0.47 1.33 5.21 0.00 8.79

MPG 3.48 0.24 1.07 1.33 1.56 0.00 7.69

LDF 1.31 0.05 0.40 0.46 5.21 0.00 7.43

LPG 3.24 0.05 0.99 0.46 1.56 0.00 6.30

MD 0.64 0.00 0.20 0.76 13.75 0.00 15.35

LD 0.66 0.00 0.20 0.15 13.75 0.00 14.76

GE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 7.29

(b) Base case results for SME power applications (¢/kWh)

Technologyoptions Capital Installation Fixed O&M Variable O&M Fuel Grid supply Total

SDF 1.88 0.79 0.58 3.81 7.29 0.00 14.35

SPG 3.82 0.79 1.17 3.81 4.69 0.00 14.28

MDF 1.54 0.24 0.47 1.33 7.29 0.00 10.88

MPG 3.48 0.24 1.07 1.33 4.69 0.00 10.81

SD 0.65 0.00 0.20 2.54 13.75 0.00 17.13

MD 0.64 0.00 0.20 0.76 13.75 0.00 15.35

GE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 7.29

(c) Base case results for rural/remote power applications (¢/kWh)

Technology Fixed Variable Service Gridoptions Capital Installation O&M O&M Fuel T&D fee supply Total

SDF 1.88 0.79 0.58 1.27 6.25 0.75 1.59 0.00 13.11

SPG 3.82 0.79 1.17 1.27 3.13 0.75 1.59 0.00 12.52

SD 0.65 0.79 0.20 0.63 13.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 16.77

GE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 7.29

90



(d) Base case results for grid-interfaced power applications (¢/kWh)

Technology Fixed Variable Service Gridoptions Capital Installation O&M O&M Fuel fee supply Total

MDF 0.77 0.18 0.24 0.95 7.29 0.38 0.00 9.81

MPG 1.74 0.18 0.54 0.95 4.69 0.38 0.00 8.47

LDF 0.66 0.04 0.20 0.23 7.29 0.10 0.00 8.51

LPG 1.62 0.04 0.50 0.23 4.69 0.10 0.00 7.16

GE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 7.29

Legend:S: Small gasifier (30kW); M: Medium gasifier (100 kW); L: Large gasifier (500 kW)DF: Dual fuel engine; PG: producer gas engine; D: Pure diesel engineGE: Grid electricity

91



Tabl

e A

3.1.

3: S

umm

ary

of fi

nanc

ial a

naly

sis

for

vari

ous

appl

icat

ions

(a)

SME

(the

rmal

)

Size

of t

he u

nit –

100

kW

Gas

ifier

rep

lace

s ex

istin

g liq

uid

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s

Net

Net

Tax

Initi

alin

crea

sein

crea

seBl

ower

Net

Loan

savin

g on

Gro

ssG

ross

Net

PV o

fCa

pita

lIn

stal

latio

n in

fixe

d in

var

iabl

eop

erat

ing

savin

gsre

paym

ent

depr

ecia

tion

Out

flow

Inflo

wIn

flow

cash

Year

($)

($)

O&

M ($

)O

&M

($)

cost

s ($

)in

fuel

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

flow

($)

025

0012

500

00

00

037

500

–375

0–3

750

10

062

562

524

328

896

1770

375

3263

2927

126

008

2364

3

20

064

464

425

128

896

1770

375

3308

2927

125

963

2145

7

30

066

366

325

828

896

1770

375

3354

2927

125

917

1947

2

40

068

368

326

628

896

1770

375

3402

2927

125

869

1766

9

50

070

370

327

428

896

1770

375

3451

2927

125

820

1603

2

60

072

572

528

228

896

1770

375

3501

2927

125

770

1454

6

70

074

674

629

128

896

1770

375

3553

2927

125

718

1319

7

80

076

976

929

928

896

1770

375

3606

2927

125

664

1197

3

90

079

279

230

828

896

1770

375

3662

2927

125

609

1086

1

100

081

581

531

728

896

1770

375

3718

2927

125

553

9852

Pres

ent V

alue

(PV

) of r

ecur

ring

cas

h flo

ws/

initi

al c

apita

l out

lay

= 4

2.3

Inte

rnal

Rat

e of

Ret

urn

(IRR)

= 6

93%

92



(b)

SME

(pow

er)

Size

of t

he u

nit –

100

kW

Type

of G

ES –

100

% p

rodu

cer g

as b

ased

sys

tem

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s

Tax

Pow

erPo

wer

Initi

alLo

ansa

ving

onpu

rcha

sepu

rcha

seG

ross

Gro

ssN

etPV

of

capi

tal

Inst

alla

tion

Fixe

dVa

riabl

eFu

elpa

ymen

tsde

prec

iatio

n. p

rice

avoi

ded

Out

flow

Inflo

wIn

flow

cash

Year

($)

($)

O&

M ($

)O

&M

($)

($)

($)

($)

(¢/k

Wh)

cost

s ($

)($

)($

)($

) fl

ow ($

)

011

250

6250

00

00

00

1750

00

–175

00–1

7500

10

028

1335

0012

319

7964

1688

7.9

2080

526

596

2249

3–4

103

–373

0

20

028

9736

0512

688

7964

1688

8.2

2142

927

154

2311

7–4

038

–333

7

30

029

8437

1313

069

7964

1688

8.4

2207

227

730

2376

0–3

971

–298

3

40

030

7338

2513

461

7964

1688

8.7

2273

428

323

2442

2–3

901

–266

5

50

031

6539

3913

865

7964

1688

8.9

2341

628

934

2510

4–3

830

–237

8

60

032

6040

5714

281

7964

1688

9.2

2411

929

563

2580

6–3

757

–212

1

70

033

5841

7914

709

7964

1688

9.5

2484

230

211

2653

0–3

681

–188

9

80

034

5943

0515

151

7964

1688

9.7

2558

830

878

2727

5–3

603

–168

1

90

035

6344

3415

605

7964

1688

10.0

2635

531

566

2804

3–3

523

–149

4

100

036

7045

6716

073

7964

1688

10.3

2714

632

274

2883

3–3

441

–132

6

Res

ults

of c

ash

flow

ana

lysi

s ac

ross

diff

eren

t sc

enar

ios

Scen

ario

PV o

f rec

urrin

g ca

sh fl

ows/

initi

al c

apita

l out

lay

IRR

(%)

Base

cas

e–1

.35

Hig

h PL

F (6

0%)

–0.6

1

Low

100

%-P

G-b

ased

-eng

ine

cost

(sam

e co

st a

s eq

uiva

lent

dua

l-fue

l eng

ine)

1.14

14

Low

100

%-P

G-b

ased

-eng

ine

cost

& h

igh

PLF

3.10

61

93



(c)

Info

rmal

ent

erpr

ises

Size

of t

he u

nit –

30

kWG

asifi

er r

epla

ces

exist

ing

solid

bio

mas

s bu

rnin

g in

form

al u

nit .

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s

Net

Net

Serv

ice

Tax

Initi

alin

crea

se in

crea

seBl

ower

fee

for t

heN

etLo

ansa

ving

onG

ross

Gro

ssN

etPV

of

Capi

tal

Inst

alla

tion

in fi

xed

in V

aria

ble

oper

atin

gen

trep

rene

ursa

vings

repa

ymen

tde

prec

iatio

nO

utflo

wIn

flow

Inflo

wca

shYe

ar($

)($

)O

&M

($)

O&

M ($

)co

sts

($)

($)

in fu

el ($

)($

)($

)($

)($

)($

) fl

ow ($

)

037

5037

50

00

00

00

4125

0–4

125

–412

5

10

018

810

012

212

518

2544

711

398

119

3895

686

9

20

019

310

312

512

918

8044

711

399

719

9299

582

2

30

019

910

612

913

319

3644

711

310

1420

4910

3577

8

40

020

510

913

313

719

9444

711

310

3121

0710

7673

5

50

021

111

313

714

120

5444

711

310

4821

6711

1869

4

60

021

711

614

114

521

1644

711

310

6622

2811

6265

6

70

022

411

914

514

921

7944

711

310

8522

9212

0761

9

80

023

112

315

015

422

4544

711

311

0423

5712

5358

5

90

023

812

715

415

823

1244

711

311

2424

2413

0155

2

100

024

513

015

916

323

8144

711

311

4424

9413

5052

0

PV o

f rec

urri

ng c

ash

flow

s/in

itial

cap

ital o

utla

y =

1.60

IRR=

23%

94



(d)

Larg

e ca

ptiv

e

Size

of t

he u

nit –

100

kW

Type

of g

asifi

er –

100

% p

rodu

cer

gas

base

d sy

stem

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s

Tax

Pow

erPo

wer

Initi

alLo

ansa

ving

onpu

rcha

sepu

rcha

seG

ross

Gro

ssN

etPV

of

capi

tal

Inst

alla

tion

Fixe

dVa

riabl

eFu

elpa

ymen

tsde

prec

iatio

n.pr

ice

avoi

ded

Out

flow

Inflo

wIn

flow

cash

Year

($)

($)

O&

M ($

)O

&M

($)

($)

($)

($)

(¢/k

Wh)

cost

s ($

)($

)($

)($

)flo

w ($

)

011

250

6250

00

00

00.

00

1750

00

–175

00–1

7500

10

028

1335

0041

0679

6416

887.

920

805

1838

322

493

4109

3736

20

028

9736

0542

2979

6416

888.

221

429

1869

623

117

4421

3654

30

029

8437

1343

5679

6416

888.

422

072

1901

823

760

4742

3563

40

030

7338

2544

8779

6416

888.

722

734

1934

924

422

5073

3465

50

031

6539

3946

2279

6416

888.

923

416

1969

125

104

5413

3361

60

032

6040

5747

6079

6416

889.

224

119

2004

225

806

5764

3253

70

033

5841

7949

0379

6416

889.

524

842

2040

526

530

6125

3143

80

034

5943

0550

5079

6416

889.

725

588

2077

827

275

6497

3031

90

035

6344

3452

0279

6416

8810

.026

355

2116

228

043

6880

2918

100

036

7045

6753

5879

6416

8810

.327

146

2155

828

833

7275

2805

PV o

f rec

urri

ng c

ash

flow

s/in

itial

cap

ital o

utla

y =

1.8

9IR

R= 2

6%

95



(e)

Rur

al –

rem

ote

Size

of t

he u

nit –

30

kWTy

pe o

f gas

ifier

– 1

00 p

erce

nt P

rodu

cer

gas

base

d sy

stem

Cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t – $

2214

6In

stal

latio

n co

st –

$62

50In

vest

men

t in

sett

ing

up m

ini-g

rid –

$36

46

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s

Reve

nue

Reve

nue

Serv

ice

from

ele

ctric

ityfro

m e

lect

ricity

PV o

fFi

xed

Varia

ble

Fuel

fee

for t

hesa

le to

dom

estic

sale

for p

rodu

ctive

Gro

ssG

ross

Net

cash

Year

O&

M ($

)O

&M

($)

($)

inte

rmed

iary

($)

cons

umer

s ($

)ap

plic

atio

ns ($

))O

utflo

w ($

)In

flow

($)

Inflo

w ($

)flo

w ($

)

00

00

00

00

00

0

111

0710

0041

112

5075

014

3637

6821

86–1

582

–143

8

211

4110

3052

012

8891

719

2839

7828

45–1

134

–937

311

7510

6163

713

2610

8324

9341

9935

77–6

22–4

67

412

1010

9376

013

6612

5031

3844

2943

88–4

1–2

8

512

4611

2689

114

0714

1738

6646

6952

8361

438

1

612

8411

5910

2714

4915

8346

8549

1962

6813

4976

1

713

2211

9411

7114

9317

5056

0051

8073

5021

7011

14

813

6212

3013

2115

3719

1766

1854

5085

3530

8414

39

914

0312

6714

7915

8320

8377

4657

3298

3040

9817

38

1014

4513

0516

4316

3122

5089

9260

2311

242

5219

2012

PV o

f rec

urri

ng c

ash

flow

s/in

itial

cap

ital o

utla

y =

0.1

4IR

R= 1

6%

96



(f)

Rur

al –

gri

d-in

terf

aced

Size

of t

he u

nit –

100

kW

Type

of G

ES –

100

% p

rodu

cer

gas

base

d sy

stem

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s (O

utflo

ws)

Serv

ice

Capi

tal

Inst

alla

tion

Grid

-inte

rfaci

ngFi

xed

O&

MVa

riabl

eFu

elLo

anfe

e fo

r the

Gro

ssYe

ar($

)($

)eq

uipm

ent (

$)($

)O

&M

($)

($)

repa

ymen

t ($)

inte

rmed

iary

($)

Out

flow

s ($

)

011

250

6250

3125

00

00

020

625

10

00

2813

5000

1642

561

1420

0032

352

20

00

2897

5150

1691

861

1420

6033

139

30

00

2984

5305

1742

561

1421

2233

949

40

00

3073

5464

1794

861

1421

8534

784

50

00

3165

5628

1848

661

1422

5135

645

60

00

3260

5796

1904

161

1423

1936

531

70

00

3358

5970

1961

261

1423

8837

443

80

00

3459

6149

2020

161

1424

6038

383

90

00

3563

6334

2080

761

1425

3439

351

100

00

3670

6524

2143

161

1426

1040

348

97



(f)

Rur

al –

gri

d-in

terf

aced

(co

ntin

ued)

Bas

e ca

se c

ash

flow

s (I

nflo

ws)

Reve

nue

from

Reve

nue

from

Reve

nue

from

Tax

savin

g on

elec

tric

ity s

ale

toel

ectr

icity

sal

e fo

rel

ectr

icity

sal

eG

ross

Net

PV o

fYe

arde

prec

iatio

n ($

)do

mes

tic c

onsu

mer

s ($

)pr

oduc

tive

appl

icat

ions

($)

to

the

grid

($)

Inflo

w ($

)In

flow

($)

cash

flow

($)

00

00

00

–206

25–2

0625

116

8860

830

9330

660

3604

936

9733

61

216

8881

840

3330

963

3750

143

6236

05

316

8810

6350

6431

140

3895

450

0537

60

416

8813

4961

8631

174

4039

756

1238

33

516

8816

8274

0131

045

4181

661

7138

32

616

8820

6887

0730

734

4319

766

6637

63

716

8825

1510

104

3021

844

524

7081

3634

816

8830

3011

594

2947

145

782

7399

3452

916

8836

2213

175

2846

846

953

7602

3224

1016

8843

0314

847

2717

948

017

7669

2957

PV o

f rec

urri

ng c

ash

flow

s/in

itial

cap

ital o

utla

y =

1.7

2IR

R= 2

3%

98



Assumptions for levelized cost56 and cashflow calculations: cost parameters57

1. Capital costs

Thermal applications’ gasifier capital costs (for all capacity ranges) –125$/kWPower applications’ gasifier capital costs±

Unit capacity range (kW) Capital cost ($/kW)

Small (10-50) 200

Medium (50-200) 146

Large (500) 106± Includes cost of the gasifier along with the gas cleaning/cooling system

Engine type Capital cost ($/kW)

Dual fuel 104

100% PG 417

2. Operation and Maintenance Costs

Fixed O&M (annual): 5 % of capital costs (for both power and thermal applications)Variable gasifier O&M costs, thermal applications:§

Application category Gasifier Unit Capacity Additional manpower requirements Salary per month ($)

SME Small (30 kW) No additional requirement

Medium (100 kW) 1 unskilled person 42

Informal sector Small (10 kW) 1 semi-skilled person servicing 20gasifier units in a cluster 42

Small (30 kW) 1 semi-skilled person servicing 10gasifier units in a cluster 42

§ This estimates the additional manpower requirements for operating a gasifier-based system over existing liquid-fuel or solid-biomass-burning systems.Note: In addition to the manpower costs, incremental variable O&M costs also include the costs of blower operation @8 ¢/hr for a 100kWsystem, @4 ¢/hour for a 30kW system, and @2 ¢/hour for a 10kW system

56 All figures are in 2001-02 prices. The exchange rateof Rs.48 to US$1is assumed for cost conversions.57 Unless otherwise stated, all cost figures are basedon manufacturers’ data sheets compiled by TERI, in-ternal documents available from different institutions,and authors’ best estimates based on current prevail-ing practices and from their own experiences. It shouldbe noted that capital cost assumptions for gasifiers andengines are based on lowest cost quoted by differentmanufacturers.

99



Variable gasifier O&M costs, power applications:

Monthly salary, Monthly salary,Application Gasifier No of skilled No of unskilled skilled person unskilled personcategory Unit Capacity persons persons ($/8-hr shift) ($/8-hr shift)

Large captive Medium 1 3 167 42

Large 2 4 167 42

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Small 1 2 167 42

Medium 1 3 167 42

Rural/Remote Small 1 2 42 21

Grid-interfaced Medium 1 3 83 42

Large 1 4 83 42

Note: In addition to the manpower costs, incremental variable O&M costs also include the costs of blower operation @8 ¢/hr for a 100kWsystem, @4 ¢/hour for a 30kW system, and @2 ¢/hour for a 10kW system

Variable O&M costs, diesel engine operation for power applications

Application ($/person/8 hr shift)

Large captive 167

SME 167

Rural/Remote 42

Grid-interfaced 167

3. Fuel Costs

Biomass cost

Application category Biomass cost (¢/kg)

Large Captive 1

SME 3

Informal sector 2

Rural/remote 2

Grid-interfaced 3

Diesel cost – 42 ¢/liter

100



4. Installation cost items (includes the cost of construction of civil works, retrofitting and other costs associated withsystem installation)

Application category Cost (US$)

Thermal SME 10 percent of the gasifier capital cost

Informal sector 10 percent of the gasifier capital cost

Power Large Captive 6250

SME 6250

Rural/remote 6250

Grid-interfaced 6250 plus an additional cost of 3125 for grid-interfacing

5. Costs for setting up mini-grid in rural/remote area electrification

Gasifier unit size 30 kW

No of households connected 60

Length of the mini-grid 1 km

Investment cost for setting up mini grid $3646

6. Service fee for the entrepreneur/NGO

Application category Unit size Service fee ($/month/per gasifier)

Rural/remote 30 kW 104 (for the NGO)

Informal sector† 10 kW 5 (for the entrepreneur)30 kW 10 (for the entrepreneur)

Grid-interfaced 100kW 167 (for the entrepreneur)500 kW 208 (for the entrepreneur)

† The entrepreneur provides energy services to a cluster of firms in the informal sector. The assumption here is that the entrepreneurprovides services to ten firms in a cluster with firms with 10kW gasifiers, and to five firms in a cluster with firms with 10kW gasifiers. Thusservice fee for the entrepreneur from a single cluster operation is assumed to be approx. $100 per month.

7.

Cost of power supply from the grid – 7.3 ¢/kWh 58

58 Source: Annual Report on the working of State Elec-tricity Boards and Electricity Departments, May 2002(http://planningcommission.nic.in)

101



Assumptions for levelized cost59 and cashflow calculations: performance parame-ters60

59 All figures are in 2001-02 prices. The exchange rateof Rs.48 to US$1is assumed for cost conversions.60 Performance parameter figures are based on inter-nal documents available from different institutions,authors’ best estimates based on current prevailingpractices & from their own experiences.

1. Fuel replacement values (thermal applications)

Fuel consumption pattern by firm before gasifier installation Fuel replacement values post gasifier installation

Liquid fuel burning 1 litre of liquid fuel replaced by 3.2 kg of biomass

Solid biomass burning Biomass consumption is halved

2. Base scenario PLF assumptions (power applications)

Application category Base scenario PLF assumptions (%)

Large Captive 30

SME 30

Rural/remote 30

Grid-interfaced 60

3. Specific Fuel consumption (power applications)

Type of system Biomass consumption (kg/kWh) Diesel consumption (liters/kWh)

Dual-fuel system 1 0.1

100% Producer-gas-based system 1.5 0

Only diesel 0 0.33

4. Calorific value of the fuels

Biomass – 4,500 kcal/kg

Diesel – 10,000 kcal/litre

5. Gasifier life – 10 years

6.

Discount rate – 10 percent

102



1. Application-specific parameters61

Large SME SME§ Rural/captive (Power) (Thermal) Informal† Remote Grid-interfaced

Unit capacity (kW) 100 100 100 30 30 100

Fraction of capital cost as loan 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Nil 0.8

Interest rate for loan repayment (%) 12 12 12 8 Nil 6

Loan repayment period (years) 10 10 10 10 Nil 10

Purchase price of electricity from the grid (¢/kWh) 8 8 NA NA NA NA

Note: Cash flow calculations are for 100 percent producer gas based options for power applications.§Cash flow calculations for SME assume replacement of a liquid fuel consuming SME with a biomass gasifier.†Cash flow calculations assume that the biomass gasifier replaces solid biomass burning in a firm in the informal sector.

2. Rural/remote applications

Gasifier unit capacity – 30 kWDomestic consumption – Number of households: 60; 4 hours/dayProductive applications – The electricity tariff for productive applications is assumed to be at the same rate asthe levelized cost of supply.

Load distribution patterns for rural/remote applications:

Year of Load per Load for productive Overall Monthly chargeoperation household (W) applications (kW) system PLF (%) from domestic consumers ($/household)

1 100 10 7.5 1.0

2 122 12 9.5 1.3

3 144 14 11.6 1.5

4 167 17 13.9 1.7

5 189 19 16.3 2.0

6 211 21 18.8 2.2

7 233 23 21.4 2.4

8 256 26 24.1 2.7

9 278 28 27.0 2.9

10 300 30 30.0 3.1

Other assumptions for cash flow calculations

61 Authors’ estimates, based on current prevailing practices.

103



3. Grid-interfaced applications

Gasifier unit capacity – 100 kWOverall system PLF – 60%Domestic consumption – Number of households: 200; 4 hours/dayProductive applications – The electricity tariff for productive applications is assumed to be at the same rate asthe levelized cost of supply.

Load distribution patterns, electricity tariffs for grid-interfaced applications

Load per Load for productive Daily hours of elec.Year of household applications consumption for productive Domestic tariff Tariff for poweroperation (W) (kW) applications (hrs/day) (¢/kWh) sale to grid (¢/kWh)

1 100 33 3.0 2.1 3.2

2 122 41 3.2 2.3 3.4

3 144 48 3.4 2.5 3.5

4 167 56 3.6 2.8 3.7

5 189 63 3.8 3.1 3.9

6 211 70 4.0 3.4 4.1

7 233 78 4.2 3.7 4.3

8 256 85 4.4 4.1 4.5

9 278 93 4.6 4.5 4.7

10 300 100 4.8 4.9 5.0

4. Common parameters62

Depreciation rate – Linear rate of depreciation for the entire capital cost over the life of the project for allapplication categoriesTax rate – 30 percentAverage annual rate of inflation for all cost items – 3 percent

62 Common parameter figures are based on authors’best estimates based on current prevailing practices.from their own experiences.

104




Annexure 4 —List of People Interviewed 63

63 All interviews were conducted during the periodFebruary-April, 2003.

1.

Name Title Institution

Dr. B. C. Jain Managing Director Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies PrivateLimited; Baroda, Kolkata.

2. Mr. A D S Chauhan Senior Consultant

3. Mr. Pinaki Sarkar Business DevelopmentManager

4. Dr. S Dasappa Professor ASTRA, CGPL, IISc, Bangalore

5. Mr. H I Somashekhar ASTRA, IISc, Bangalore

6. Mr. S K Bose Consultant/Advisor Bioenergy Technology Services, GrainProcessing Industries, Kolkata

7. Mr. S C Khuntia Project coordinator Biomass Energy for Rural India project,Bangalore

8. Dr. H S Mukunda Prof., Department ofAerospace EngineeringChief Executive, ABETS

Combustion, Gasification and PropulsionLaboratory (CGPL, IISc, Bangalore)

9. Mr. G S Sridhar Researcher

10. Mr. A Bhattacharya Asst. Manager Marine Cummins (Engine manufacturer)

11. Dr. P K Bhatnagar Consultant/Advisor Decentralised Energy Systems India (P) Ltd.(DESI Power), New Delhi

12. Prof. P V R Iyer Professor Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT Delhi

13. Prof. P P Parikh Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering, IITMumbai

14. Mr. N Selva Kumar Project Engineer, GasifierAction Research Project

15. Dr. Arun Kumar Vice President Development Alternatives, New Delhi

16. Dr. K Chatterjee Climate Change Centre,Global Environment SystemsGroup

17. Mr. K G Sinha Consultant Director, Cross Informatics Private Limited,Renewable Energy System

106



18.


Rajesh Kansara Assistant Technical Executive Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA),Baroda

19. Smita Parikh

20. Mr. Atul Bhalla Consultant

21. Mr.DebashishMajumdar

Director-Technical Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency(IREDA), New Delhi

22. Dr. Sharad Lele Interdisciplinary studies in Environment andDevelopment (CISED), Bangalore

23. Mr. Ramesh H Nagar Assistant General Manager Karnataka Renewable Energy DevelopmentLimited

24. Mr. Lokesh Vaghela Owner, C02 manufacturingplant

Mahabhadra Industrial Gases, Baroda

25. Mr. V K Bahuguna Inspector General, Forests Ministry of Environment and Forests, NewDelhi

26. Mr. J B S Girdhar Director, Gasifiers

27. Dr. J R Meshram Director, Biomass

28. Dr. P C Maithani Principal Scientific Officer

29. Mr. Sumit Chakraborty GM, Engineering and ProjectManagement

Netpro Renewable Energy (India) Ltd.Bangalore

30. Mr. Madhu Nair Manager, Projects

31. Mr. S G Gupta DEGM (Mech), AdvancedTechnology Group

32. Mr. Ramesh Limbani Owner, Seamless Pipe andTube mfg.

33. Mr. S P Sethi Energy Advisor

34. Mr. S Majumdar Chief Rural Electrification Corporation, New Delhi,India

Independent, New Delhi

Coordinator

Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources,New Delhi

NTPCL, Noida

Patson Industries, Baroda

Planning Commission, New Delhi

35. Mr. Dulal Sinha Co-operative head Rural Energy Co-operative, Gosaba, WestBengal

36. Prof. B S Pathak Director Sardar Patel Renewable Energy ResearchInstitute, Gujarat

37. Mr. S N Srinivas Research Associate, Centrefor Renewable Energy andEnvironment Studies

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI),Bangalore

38. Dr. V V N Kishore Head, Centre for Energy andEnvironment

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI),New Delhi

39. Mr. Sanjay Mande Fellow, Biomass EnergyTechnology Applications

107

Annexure 4. List of People Interviewed


40


Mr. John Smith-Sreen Deputy Director- Office ofEnergy, Environment andEnterprise

USAID, New Delhi

41 Mr. Sandeep Tandon

42 Mr. T K Hazra Additional Director

43 Mr. S K Mondal Assistant Director44 Mr. Rajarshi Saha West Bengal Comprehensive Area

Development Corporation, Kolkata

45 Mr. S P Gon Chaudhuri Director West Bengal Renewable Energy DevelopmentAgency (WBREDA), Kolkata

46 MR. S R Sikdar Advisor West Bengal Rural Energy DevelopmentCorporation

47 Mr. Jami Hossain Sr. Programme Officer Winrock International India, New Delhi

48 Mr. Jai Uppal Advisor- Renewable Energy

WBREDA, Kolkata

Cell-in-Charge

Project ManagementSpecialist- Office of Energy,Environment and Enterprise

108




Chakravarthy P, Raman P, and Kishore V.V.N.1991. Evaluation study of biomass gasifiersystems at Haryana. Report submitted toHAREDA, Chandigarh, February, 1991. TERI,New Delhi.

Dhingra S, and Kishore, V.V.N. 1999. ‘SDC-TERIexperience on product development—Case 1:design, development and field-testing of gasifier-based silk reeling oven’. TERI, New Delhi.

Goldemberg J. 2000. ‘Rural Energy in Develop-ing Countries’. Chap 10. In World EnergyAssessment—Energy and the Challenge of Sus-tainability, UNDP pp: 367–392

Johansson T.B. and J. Goldemberg. 2002. “TheRole of Energy in Sustainable Development:Basic Facts and Issues”. Chap 1. In Energyfor Sustainable Development: A Policy Agenda,edited by T.B. Johansson and J. Goldem-berg. UNDP: 25–40

Kartha Sivan and Eric D. Larson. 2000. ‘Technol-ogies to convert Biomass into Modern Ener-gy’. Chap 5. In Bioenergy Primer: ModernisedBiomass Energy for Sustainable Development,UNDP: 83–112

Kishore V.V.N. et.al, 2001. ‘Potential and statusof Thermal Gasifier systems for industrialapplications’. Paper presented at the regionalworkshop on gasifier applications at Anna Uni-versity, Chennai. January 2001.

References

Mande S, Kumar A, and Kishore V.V.N. 1999. ‘Astudy of large cardamom curing chambersin Sikkim’. Biomass and Bioenergy, 16 (1999),pp 463–473

MNES (Ministry of Non-conventional EnergySources). 2001. ‘Renewable Energy in India,Business Opportunities’. Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) Govern-ment of India, New Delhi, pp 42–44; 65–67.

MNES (Ministry of Non-conventional EnergySources). 2002. ‘Annual Report 2001–2002’.Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources,Government of India, New Delhi.

Mukunda H.S., S. Dasappa, Paul P.J., RajanN.K.S., Sridhar G., Sridhar H.V., and Shrini-vasa U. ‘Thermo-chemical conversion ofbiomass: a retrospective and a prospective.’http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in.

Reddy, A.K.N. 2000. ‘Energy and Social Issues’.Chap 2. In World Energy Assessment—Energyand the Challenge of Sustainability, UNDP:41–60

Reddy, A.K.N., R. H. Williams, and T.B. Johans-son. 1997. “New Opportunities in EnergyDemand, Supply and Systems”. Chap 3. InEnergy After Rio—Prospects and Challenges,UNDP: 63–108

110



Sagar, A.D. and Mathur A. 2001. Energy Innova-tion, Climate Change and Sustainable De-velopment, draft mimeo, April 2001.

Sarvekshana, 1995. ‘Survey of unorganizedmanufacturing sector’. NSS 45th round. De-partment of Statistics, Government of India,Sarvekshana, Vol. XIX, No.1, 64th issue. July-September 1995

Smith K.R. 2002. ‘ Indoor air pollution in devel-oping countries: recommendations for re-search.’ Indoor Air 12(3): 198–207.

Smith, K. R., Zhang J., Uma R., Kishore V.V.N.,Joshi V., Khalil M.A.K. 2000. ‘GreenhouseImplications for Household stoves: AnAnalysis for India’. Annual Review of theEnergy and the Environment 25: 741–763

Someshekhar H.J, S. Dasappa, and N.H. Ravin-dranath. 2000. ‘Rural bioenergy centersbased on biomass gasifiers for decentralizedpower generation: case study of two villag-es in southern India’. Energy for SustainableDevelopment, Volume IV, No.3, pp: 55–63

Srinivas S.N., Ravindranath N.H., Dasappa S.,Shrinivasa U., and Mukunda H.S. 1992.‘Wood gasifier based rural power genera-tion system: a case-study’. Pacific and AsianJournal of Energy Vol.2, no.2, pp 81–91.

TEDDY (The Energy Data Directory and Yearbook).2000. TERI, New Delhi.

TERI, Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited, GramVikas. 2001. ‘Development, testing and fielddemonstration of 100% producer gas powerplants in the 10–50 kWe, range for ruralelectrification’. Project concept note submittedto the Ministry of Non-Conventional EnergySources, Government of India, New Delhi.May 2001

TERI. 1994. ‘ Indian wood and biomass energydevelopment’, Final project report submit-ted for Indian wood and biomass energy devel-opment project. FAO, Bangkok.


Barnett A. 1990. ‘The Diffusion of Energy Tech-nology in the Rural Areas of DevelopingCountries: A synthesis of Recent Experi-ence’. World Development, Vol.18, No.4,pp.539–553

Carlsson Bo (ed.), 1997. Technological systems andindustrial dynamics. Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers

CEA (Central Electricity Authority). 2002. ‘Sta-tus and progress of rural electrification pro-gramme’. Central Electricity Authority (CEA)and Ministry of Power (MoP), Government ofIndia, New Delhi.

Dasappa S., Shrinivasa U., Baliga B.N. andMukunda H.S. 1989. ‘Five-kilowatt woodgasifier technology: Evolution and fieldexperience’. Sadhana, Vol.14, Part 3, pp187–212

Dhingra S, Mande S, Kishore V.V. N. and JoshiV. 1997. ‘Briquetting of biomass in India:status and potential’. FAO’s RWEDP ReportNo.23 FAO, Bangkok.

Hall,T.B.and Larson,R.1997. ‘A wood-gas stovefor developing countries’ inBridgwater,A.V.and Boocock,D.G.B.(ed.)Developments in Thermochemical BiomassConversion, Blackie Academic and Profes-sional Press, London.

Holdren J.P. and K.R. Smith. 2000. ‘Energy, theEnvironment and Health’. Chap 3. In WorldEnergy Assessment- Energy and the Challengeof Sustainability, UNDP pp: 61–110

Hosier R. and M. Sharma. 2000. ‘Global Envi-ronmental Facility Support for modernizedbiomass energy: experiences from UNDPand the World Bank’. Energy for SustainableDevelopment, Volume IV, No.3, pp 83–89

Jain B.C. 2000. ‘Commercializing biomass gasifi-ers: Indian experience’. Energy for Sustain-able Development, Volume IV, No.3, pp: 72–82

Jain B.C. 1995. ‘Facilitating wise bioresourcedevelopment and use- the role of commer-cial enterprises’. Energy for Sustainable Devel-opment, Volume 1, No.5, pp: 35–44

Kishore V.V.N. 1999. ‘Energy use in traditionalindustries’. Paper presented at Regional Con-gress on Traditional Science and Technologies,24 June 1999, Chirala, AP, India.

Kishore V.V.N. 1997. ‘Renewable energy tech-nologies for India: imports vs. indigenousdevelopment’ in Venkata Ramana P. (ed.)Rural and renewable energy: perspectives fromdeveloping countries. TERI, New Delhi, pp67–83.

Kishore V.V.N and Srinivas S.N. 2001. ‘Biofuelsfor India’, Journal of Scientific and IndustrialResearch, CSIR.

Bibliography

112



Larson Eric D., and Kartha S. 2000. ‘Expandingroles for modernized biomass energy’. Ener-gy for Sustainable Development. Volume IVNo.3, pp 15–42

Lele Sharadchandra. 1994. ‘Sustainable use ofbiomass resources: a note on definitions,criteria and practical applications’. Energyfor Sustainable Development, Vol. I No.4.

Lundvall B.A. (ed.), 1992. National systems ofinnovation: towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. Pinter: London

Malhotra P., Dutta S., Pal R.C., Sharma S., andRamana P.V. 2000. Rural energy matters—theDhanwas experience. TERI, New Delhi, pp81–87.

Mande S, Pai B.R. and Kishore V.V.N. 2000.‘Study of stoves used in silk reeling indus-try’. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19 (2000), pp 51–61.

Mathur Ajay. 1997. ‘Development and deploy-ment of renewable energy technologies inIndia: a technology perspective’ in VenkataRamana P. (ed.) Rural and renewable energy:perspectives from developing countries. TERI,New Delhi, pp 251–269

Metz Bert, Ogunlade Davidson, Jan-WillemMartens, Sascha Van Rooijen and Laura VanWie Mcgrory (Eds.). 2000. Methodological andTechnological Issues in Technology Transfer.Special Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, UK

Mukunda H.S., S. Dasappa, and Shrinivasa U.1993. ‘Open-top Wood Gasifiers’. In Renew-able Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity,edited by T.B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A.K.N.Reddy and R.H. Williams. Washington, DC:Island Press, pp 699–728

Mukunda H.S., Dasappa S., Paul P.J., RajanN.K.S., Shrinivasa U. 1994. ‘Gasifiers andcombustors for biomass—technology andfield studies’. Energy for Sustainable Develop-ment. Volume I, No.3, pp 27–38

Mukunda H.S., Paul P.J. 1994. ‘Results of anIndo-Swiss programme for qualificationand testing of a 300-kW IISc-Dasag gasifier’.Energy for Sustainable Development. Volume1, No.4, pp 46–49

PCAST Energy R&D Panel. 1999. Powerful Part-nerships: The Federal Role in InternationalCooperation on Energy Innovation. Reportfrom the Panel on International Coopera-tion in Energy Research, Development,Demonstration and Deployment of the Pres-ident’s Committee of Advisors on Scienceand Technology, Executive Office of thePresident of the United States.

Quaak P, H. Knoef, and H.E. Stassen. 1999. Ener-gy from Biomass: A Review of Gasification andCombustion Technologies. Energy Series,World Bank Technical Paper No. 422. Wash-ington DC, World Bank.

Ramana P.V., and Joshi V. 1997. ‘Use of biomassfuels in India- trends and issues’, in VenkataRamana P. (ed.) Rural and renewable energy:perspectives from developing countries. TERI,New Delhi, pp 155–167.

Ravindranath N.H., Mukunda H.S. and SrinivasS.N. 1992. ‘Rural Energy Centre based onEnergy Forest-Wood Gasifier System’ inSingh K.K., Mathur A.N., Patil S.B., Srivas-tava P.R. (ed.), Action Research & Develop-ment in Biomass Gasification. Proceeding of IIINational Meet/PICCOP New Delhi, pp 351–355.

113

Bibliography


REC (Rural Electrification Corporation), 1999.Annual report, Rural electrification corpora-tion (REC), New Delhi.

Reed T.B. (ed.). 1981. Biomass Gasification- Princi-ples and Technology. Solar Energy ResearchInstitute, Golden CO.

Reed, T. B, and Gaur S. 2001. ‘A survey of biom-ass gasification 2000: gasifier projects andmanufacturers around the world’. 2nd edi-tion. The National Renewable Energy Laborato-ry and the Biomass Energy Foundation,Golden. CO.

Senelwa K. and R.E.H. Sims. 1999. ‘Opportuni-ties for small-scale biomass-electricity sys-tems in Kenya’. Biomass and Bioenergy 17:239–255

Sharan H.N., Mukunda H.S., Shrinivasa U.,Dasappa S., Paul P.J. and Rajan N.K.S. 1997.‘IISc-DASAG biomass gasifiers: Develop-ment, technology, experience and econom-ics’ in Bridgewater A.V. and Boocock D.G.B(ed.) Developments in Thermocehmical biomassconversion. Volume 2. Blackie Academic andProfessional, pp 1058–1072.

Siemons R.V. 2001. ‘Identifying a role for biom-ass gasification in rural electrification indeveloping countries: the economic per-spective’. Biomass and Bioenergy 20:271–285

Srinivas S.N. 2000. ‘Biomass consumption inunorganized enterprises in India’. BiomassUsers’ Network Newsletter, Vol. 3.3, pp 2–4,July 2000.

Srinivas S.N. 1993. ‘Techno-economic Improve-ments to Rural Service System- Case Studyof Hosahalli’, in Paul P.J. and Mukunda H.S.(ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth National Meeton Biomass Gasification and Combustion, Inter-line Publishing.

Stassen H.E.M. 1995. Small-Scale Biomass Gasifi-ers for Heat and Power: A Global Review. Ener-gy Series, World Bank Technical Paper No.296. Washington DC, World Bank

Vipradas M. (ed.). 2001. Renewables: Products andMarkets, TERI, New Delhi, pp 33–46

World Bank. 2000. Energy Services for the World’sPoor. Energy Sector Management AssistanceProgramme. World Bank: Washington, D.C

World Bank. 1996. Rural energy and development:improving energy supplies for two billion peo-ple. World Bank: Washington, D.C

114



scaling up biomass gasifier use - world...

Documents