Proceedings
Proceedings of ASME
DRAFT
ON THE ECONOMICS OF THE USE OF BIOMASS FUELS IN GAS TURBINE CYCLES:
GASIFICATION vs. EXTERNALLY FIRING
Sandro Barros Ferreira
Instituto Tecnológico – ITUC
Pontifícia Universidade Católica – PUC
R. Marquês de São Vicente, 225 – Gávea
CEP 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro Brazil
Tel.: +55 (21) 3114 1857/Fax: +55 (21) 3114 1543
sandro@ituc.puc -rio.br
ABSTRACT
The use of biomass as gas turbine combined cycle fuels is
broadly seen as one of the alternatives to diminish greenhouse
gas emissions, mainly CO2, due to the efficiency delivered by
such systems and the renewable characteristic of biomass itself.
Integrated gasification cycles, BIGGT, are the current
technology available; however the gasification system severely
penalizes the power plant in terms of efficiency and demands
modifications in the engine to accommodate the large fuel mass
flow. This gives an opportunity to improvements in the current
technologies and implementation of new ones. This paper
intends to analyze new alternatives to the use of solid fuels in
gas turbines, from the economical point of view, through the use
of external combustion, EFGT, discussing its advantages and
limitations over the current technology. The results show that
both EFGT and BIGGT technologie s are economically
competitive with the current natural gas fired gas turbines.
However, BIGGT power plants are still in pilot scale and the
EFGT plants need further technological development.
Thermodynamically speaking, the inherently recuperative
characteristic of the EFGT gas turbine engine makes it well
suited to the biomass market. The thermal efficiency of this
cycle is higher than the BIGGT system. Furthermore, its fuel
flexibility and negligible pre-treatmet is another advantage that
makes it an interesting option for the Brazilian market.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
of ASME Turbo
Turbo ExpoExpo 2004
2004
PowerPower for Land,
for Land, Sea,Sea,
and and
Air Air
JuneJune 14-17,
14–17, 2004,2004, Vienna,
Vienna, Austria
Austria
GT2004-53220
GT2004-53220
Pericles Pilidis
School of Engineering
Cranfield University
Cranfield – MK43 0AL
United Kingdon
Tel.: +44 1234 754 646/Fax.: +44 1234 750 728
P.Pilidis@Cranfield.ac.uk
INTRODUCTION
Brazil is a vast country and its potential for the use of
renewable energy is undoubtedly immense. Biomass is one of
the most promising renewable fuels within the actual scenario,
and the wise use of t his potential can contribute to a diversified
and reliable energy matrix.
One of the most available biomass residues is a fibrous
material that comes out of the milling process in the local sugar
and alcohol mills called bagasse. This fuel represents 32 percent
of the country’s primary energy sources [1] and is generally
used in steam cycles, allowing low efficiencies. The average
production is about 20-30 kWh/ton of milled cane [2], as
mechanical and electrical power, being the former used to move
the mills. This situation could be changed with the use of more
efficient conversion processes, substantially raising the energy
produced per ton of milled cane.
Amongst the most promising technologies for the use of
biomass as fuel are the gas turbine cycles. Due to the high
sensitivity of these engines to the quality of the fuel, the
conventional approach is to gasify the solid fuel before its
combustion in the engine, the well known biomass integrated
gasification/gas turbine, BIGGT, cycle. Direct burn of biomass in
gas turbines has proven difficult, with a high rate of carbon
deposition in the blades, erosion due to the presence of
particulate, and corrosion due to the presence of alkali metals in
the hot gas stream [3-5]. Of course the impact of such effects in
the turbine life considerably increases the operation and
1 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
 maintenance costs. Gasification allows a higher quality fuel, energy from combustion gases in the heat exchanger, then the
though the cleaning process is still a costly part of the system. air is expanded in the gas generator turbine to provide work to
A different approach is economically assessed in this paper, the compressor, goes to the power turbine to generate useful
the so called externally fired gas turbine, EFGT, cycle. This work, after what is directed into the combustor. Finally, the
system is considerably advantageous when compared to the combustion products go to the ceramic heat exchanger to
BIGGT plant, as seen later on in this paper. The principle of an provide heat to the compressed air.
EFGT cycle is as follows: clean filtered air is compressed in a The main drawback of this approach, when compared to the
compressor, after what it passes through a heat exchanger, conventional cycle fuelled by fossil fuels, is the low efficiency
receiving heat from the hot gases leaving the combustor, the hot when a high temperature heat exchanger is not used [12]. Due to
air is then expanded in a turbine, and the air from the turbine is the constraints of the heat exchanger, the turbine entry
directed into the combustor. This paper will carry out an temperature is much lower than that of the conventional cycle
economic analysis of both the BIGGT and the EFGT cycles. The [7]. The development of heat exchangers that can withstand
gas turbine performance data for this analysis is taken from [6] higher temperatures at reasonable costs will change this
and are summarized in Table 1. situation, allowing efficiencies as good as those of a
conventional cycle. A controllable problem is related to the
THE BIGGT CYCLE
deterioration of the heat exchanger performance due to slagging
There are two ways of burning biomass in a gas turbine
– deposition of solid particulates in the ceramic heat exchanger
engine: direct and indirect firing. The first can be subdivided
tubes [13].
into two subclasses, in one of them the solid fuel, biomass, is
On the other hand there are several advantages in using the
burnt in a combustor, a pressurized fluidized bed combustor,
EFGT cycles fuelled by biomass. The first is that the gasification
PFBC, and the combustion products go to the expander. In this
system is no longer needed. As already said this device is very
kind of cycle the high ash content of the combustion products
costly and introduces large losses in the overall cycle efficiency,
can cause serious damage to the turbine blades, consequently
not to talk about its bulk. The second advantage is the
turbine life is drastically shortened.
versatility of the combustion chamber, i.e., many different fuels
The second subclass is the BIGGT cycle, which is the
can be burnt, allowing the use of that which is the cheapest or
reference case analysed in this paper. In this cycle the biomass
readily available. The pre-treatment needed is modest when
is converted into a gas and then, after cleaning and filtration, is
compared to other cycles. These points are of great relevance
sent to the combustor. This system suffers from some major
when considering biomass fuels. Finally, the working fluid is
drawbacks. The gasification and cleaning system severely
clean air, what means the engine lifetime will be augmented [14].
penalise the overall cycle efficiency. The gasifier introduces a
Once the turbine entry temperature, TET, is imposed by the
large efficiency loss and the contaminants (ash, tar, alkali metals,
heat exchanger capacity this device must be capable of
particulate, etc.) in the gas leaving the gasifier must be removed,
withstanding very high temperatures for the sake of the cycle
otherwise those contaminants can damage blades, and cause
efficiency. Many researchers and research centres have been
blockage of injectors, valves, and filters.
trying to develop a heat exchanger specifically to be used in
The gas cleaning can be carried out at either low or high
EFGT cycles [15-18].
temperature, each with its drawbacks. These issues have
Conventional materials used in high temperature heat
already been well discussed by many authors including [7-10].
exchangers, such as super-alloys, are not suitable for highly
Furthermore the lower heating value, LHV, of the fuel can
efficient EFGT cycles, the maximum temperature these materials
deteriorate the performance of the engine, when it has not been
can withstand is around 900oC. The use of ceramics has been
designed to this kind of fuel. Due to the very high fuel flow, the
seen as the most promising solution to the problem. Although
components operate within regions of lower efficiencies in
some researchers say that state-of-the-art ceramics are still
respect to their design characteristics. This may reduce the
unsuitable for use in EFGT engines [17], there are records of
overall efficiency of the engine unless an expensive redesign is
ceramic heat exchangers working with products from coal
undertaken.
combustion for approximately 500 hours at temperatures of up
There is also a handling risk; because the change in the
to 1535°C (1808K), without distress [15]. This EFGT cycle
mass balance between the compressor and turbine causes the
presented thermal efficiency of 35%, with pressure ratio of 9,
pressure ratio to rise and the compressor to surge. This leads to
and TET of 1150°C (1423K). With the development of ceramic
the use of bleed valves and/or variable inlet guide vanes,
VIGVs , or alternatively to the need of redesigning the turbine materials and techniques to minimise the damage caused by fuel
nozzle guide vanes [11]. contaminants it is reasonable to expect that in the near future
high efficiency EFGTs may become a commercial reality. It is
THE EFGT CYCLE worth to point out that the experimental time of operation above
The EFGT cycle consists of a compressor, a ceramic heat is still unsatisfactory to have a clear view of the ceramic heat
exchanger, a gas generator turbine, a power turbine, and a
combustor. The air delivered by the compressor receives heat

2 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 exchanger performance, though the same authors mention the
successful use of ceramic heat exchangers in other industries .
Jolly et al. [18], proposed the use of bayonet tube
arrangements in the ceramic heat exchangers for externally fired
gas turbines. A bayonet element is made of two concentric
tubes, the outer tube is plugged at one end and the inner tube is
open at both ends. The air enters the inner tube and reverses its
flow at the end to travel through the annulus (or vice-versa).
The combustion products flow across the bayonet elements in
the shell side of the heat exchanger. The use of such elements is
justified by their capacity to expand or contract under the
influence of very large temperature differences, minimising
thermal stress.
Despite all the attempts to develop a suitable heat
exchanger for EFGT cycles such a device would be available at
high costs for a long life prototype application. For this reason
in this paper the heat exchanger outlet temperature is
constrained at 1350K, meaning temperatures of 1435K in the hot
side inlet of the heat exchanger for the EFGT cycle.
The very high exhaust temperatures also suggest that this
cycle is suitable for combined gas/steam cycles. Actually, the
steam cycle can be optimized independently of the gas turbine
cycle (and vice-versa), once the HRSG inlet gas temperature can
be adjusted without interfering with the gas turbine engine [15].
RESULTS
Two cycles have been assessed, the BIGGT, and EFGT.
Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the results of the economic analysis
based on the design point performance carried out by Ferreira et
al. [6] (Table 1). The turbine inlet temp erature for the gasification
cycles was chosen to be 1450 K, yielding 27% thermal
efficiency, and for the externally fired cycles 1350 K, yielding
34% thermal efficiency. These figures have been chosen due to
limitations in flame temperatures for the BIGGT cycle and
material constraints in the EFGT cycle. The pressure ratio for the
EFGT cycle is the one which allows the maximum efficiency,
based on the simulations, which have been carried out using
GateCycle ®. The efficiencies are calculated as the ratio between
the net power produced and the heat input based on LHV.
Table 1 – Design parameters chosen for performance
calculations
BIGGT EFGT
OPR 18 6
ηc 0.88 0.88
(∆P P) cc
4% 2%
η gg 0.89 0.89
η pt 0.89 0.89
εCerHx --- 0.90
The fuel chosen is a pre-compacted sugar cane bagasse
called Bagatex, with LHV = 18.44 MJ/kg. The resulting gas from
its gasification has an LHV = 4.46 MJ/kg [19]. According to
Carpentieri et al. and Filho and Badr, [20, 21], the cost of sugar
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
cane bagasse in the North-Eastern region of Brazil has an
average price of US$ 1.50/GJ.
The reference fuel is the natural gas, used in a natural gas
fired gas turbine, NGGT. In Brazil the price of this resource is the
subject of a great deal of discussion, and varies significantly
from region to region, depending on local taxation and logistics.
Most of the natural gas is imported from the neighbour Bolivia
on a Take-or-Pay basis. The average price assumed in this paper
is US$ 4.00/GJ, and is based on the average value of several
local distribution companies.
As described the price of either biomass or natural gas
varies a lot, therefore a sensitivity analysis of the impact of the
price of fuels on the cost of electricity is carried out, based on
the following assumptions for installed capital costs: (i) NGGT,
US$1,000.00/kWe; (ii) BIGGT and (iii) EFGT, US$ 1,500.00/kWe.
The O&M costs are US$ 6/MWh for the NGGT plant and US$
10/MWh for the BIGGT and EFGT plants. The design
parameters for the NGGT cycle are the same as for the BIGGT
plant, and the thermal efficiency attained is 36%. All power
plants are open cycles and rated at the same power, which is 40
MW. The weighed return on investment is 12% per year and the
capacity factor for all cycles is assumed to be 85%.
Figure 1 shows the behavior of the cost of electricity
regarding the variation in fuel price. It is worthy of noticing that
the actual electricity tariff in Brazil, due to its hydroelectric
tradition, is far below these figures. However, Fig. 1 shows the
clear competitiveness of the biomass fuelled plants, compared
to the natural gas fired plants, when the fuel prices are the
average prices mentioned earlier in this paper.
$0,14
$0,12 NGGT
Cost of electricity [US$/kWh]
BIGGT
$0,10
EFGT
$0,08
$0,06
$0,04
$0,02
$0,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Price of delivered fuel [US$/GJ]
Fig. 1 – Sensitivity of cost of electricity to the price of
delivered fuel
The Brazilian program of incentive to renewable fuels
(PROINFA) suggests a tariff of approximately US$ 40.55/MWh
for the Northern and Northeastern regions and US$ 30.37/MWh
for the other regions of the country (based on an exchange rate
of US$1 = R$ 2.95), which does not pay for the energy from any
of the analyzed plants. Furthermore, the first phase of PROINFA
imposes the use of 100% of national equipment for biomass
3 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
 power plants and the cycles here proposed will certainly consist
mainly of imported equipments.
The capital costs for both BIGGT and EFGT, mainly, are not
well established. At the moment these costs range from
US$1,500.00 to something around US$ 2,750.00 per installed
kilowatt [20]. Thus, sensitivity to the capital cost (Fig. 3) is
carried out, so that the cost of electricity can be estimated for a
broad range of possibilities. The capital cost is also varied for
the NGGT power plant. The average fuel prices are assumed in
the same cost of electricity for a rate of return of 12%, which can
be considered a good return on investment in several countries.
The cost of electricity on a EFGT plant equals that of the NGGT
plant for a return on investment of 19%. Beyond this figure, the
natural gas fired plant is a better option.
$0,09
$0,08

Cost of electricity [US$/kWh]

$0,07
these calculations.
Figure 2 shows the response of the cost of electricity to $0,06

variations in the capacity factor. Between values of 0.80 and $0,05

0.90, the NGGT and BIGGT cycles are very close in terms of cost $0,04
NGGT
of electricity. The EFGT cycle is the one that presents the best $0,03 BIGGT
competitiveness for capacity factors over 0.50. $0,02 EFGT
BIGGT and EFGT plants have a high thermal inertia; the $0,01
first mainly due to the gasification process and the second due
$0,00
to the large heat exchanger. That means that these two cycles 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
are neither suitable for peak shaving nor emergency Installed capital costs [US$/kWe]
applications.
In Fig. 2 the economic aspect comes into place and Fig. 3 – Sensitivity of cost of electricity to changes in
reinforces the unsuitability of the biomass fired plants to low the installed capital cost of the plants
capacity factor regimes. It is clearly depicted the economic
advantage of the natural gas fired cycle, which also has a CONCLUSION
shorter start up interval. Two innovative gas turbine cycles were economically
analyzed in order to assess their feasibility. The externally fired
0,07
gas turbine shows best competitiveness with the current natural
0,06
Cost of electricity [US$/kWh]

gas fired gas turbine, considering the capital cost of the first will
0,05 be around US$ 1,500.00 per kW installed. However, this type of
cycle still needs further development, which means that such an
0,04
engine will not be in commercial operation in the near future.
NGGT
0,03
BIGGT
Nevertheless, it seems that the EFGT cycle is worthy of
EFGT attention.
0,02

0,01
$0,09
0,00 NGGT
$0,08
Cost of electricity [US$/kWh]

0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 BIGGT

$0,07 EFGT
Capacity factor
$0,06

Fig. 2 – Sensitivity of cost of electricity to the capacity $0,05

factor of the power plant $0,04
$0,03
Again in Fig. 3 the competitiveness of the biomass fuelled
cycle is assured. The EFGT cycle is the one with the lowest cost $0,02

of electricity, pointing out the penalties imposed by the $0,01

gasification system on the overall performance of the BIGGT $0,00
cycle. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

In Brazil, the interest ra te paid by the Central Bank to Return on investment

borrow money from the market is over 16%; despite the

economic drawbacks of such policy; what makes it very difficult
to find investors willing to put their money on private
investments. Thus, an assessment of the effects of the rate of
return on the final cost of electricity must be carried out, shown
in Fig. 4. Natural gas fired and BIGGT plants produce practically
Fig. 4 – Sensitivity of the cost of electricity to different
rates of return
Another issue to consider is that the O&M cost for the
EFGT cycle is still uncertain. Nevertheless, it is not wrong to
imagine that these costs will be higher than the natural gas fired

4 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 plants, mainly due to the fuel quality and the use of a heat
exchanger. The prototypes being developed have not run long
enough to determine the O&M costs.
The biomass integrated gasification/gas turbine cycle is a
more mature technology. Some specific components must be
optimized to bring it into commercial operation, such as the hot
gas cleaning. The BIGGT cycle is also competitive with the
natural gas fuelled engine and seems to be the short term
technology to become available.
Regarding the capacity factor, it is worth to mention that
some NGGT plant manufacturers claim this parameter can easily
exceed 95%. In the case of the biomass fired plants, the lack of
commercial experience does not allow the use of correct figures.
It is not the aim of this paper to degrade the importance of
the natural gas on the Brazilian energy matrix. The authors
recognize that this fuel can become one of the cornerstones of a
sustained development of one of the largest countries in Latin
America. However, biomass is as abundant as any other primary
energy source in Brazil and the correct and efficient utilization of
this resource can bring the benefits of independence from fossil
fuels, which prices are as volatile as the gas itself,
diversification of the country’s energy matrix, and helps on the
mitigation of green house gases.
NOMENCLATURE
BIGGT Biomass integrated gasification/gas turbine
EFGT Externally fired gas turbine
LHV Lower heating value, MJ/kg
NGGT Natural gas fired gas turbine
OPR Overall pressure ratio
TET Turbine entry temperature, either °C or K
ηc Compressor isentropic efficiency
( )
∆P
P cc Combustor pressure loss
η gg Gas generator turbine isentropic efficiency
η pt Power turbine isentropic efficiency
ηc Compressor isentropic efficiency
εCerHx Ceramic heat exchanger effectivenes s
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank CAPES/Brazil for its strong
financial support to this work.
REFERENCES
1. Balanço Energético Nacional; Ministério de Minas e Energia -
MME, Ministério de Minas e Energia - MME, 2003.
2. Nogueira, L. A. H. and Walter, A. C. S., "Experiências de
Geração de Energia Elétrica a Partir de Biomassa no
Brasil: aspectos técnicos e econômicos," Reunión
Regional sobre Generación de Electricidad a partir de
Biomasa, FAO/UNDP, 1995.
Notes: in Portuguese
3. Ragland, K. W., Misra, M. K., Aerts, D. J., and Palmer, C. A.,
"Ash Deposition in a Wood-Fired Gas Turbine," Journal
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 117, No.
July, 1995, pp. 509-512.
4. Wright, I. G., Leyens, C., and Pint, B. A., "An Analysis of the
Potential for Deposition, Erosion, or Corrosion in Gas
Turbines Fueled by the Products of Biomass Gasification
or Combustion," ASME TURBOEXPO 2000, 2000.
5. Yuri, I., Hisamatsu, T., Etori, Y., and Yamamoto, T.,
"Degradation of Silicon Carbide in Combustion Gas Flow
at High Temperature and Speed," Proceedings of ASME
TURBOEXPO 2000, 2000.
6. Ferreira, S. B., Pilidis, P., and Nascimento, M. A. R., "The use
of biomass fuels in gas turbine combined cycles:
gasification vs. externally fired cycle," Rio 3 - World
Climate and Energy Event, 2003.
7. Larson, E. D. and Williams, R. H., "Biomass-Fired Steam-
Injected Gas Turbine Cogeneration," Cogen Turbo II,
ASME, New York, 1988.
8. Bridgwater, A. V., "The Technical and Economic Feasibility of
Biomass Gasification for Power Generation," Fuel, Vol. 74,
No. 5, 1995, pp. 631-653.
9. Consonni, S. and Larson, E. D., "Biomass-
Gasifier/Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Combined Cycles:
Part A - Technologies and Performance Modeling,"
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol.
118, No. July, 1996, pp. 507-515.
10. Stevens, D. J., “Hot Gas Conditioning: Recent Progress With
Large-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems”; NREL -
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-
29952, USA, Aug. 2001.
11. Mathieu, P. and Pilidis, P., "The use of Gaseous Fuels on
Aero-Derivative Gas Turbine Engines," International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress & Exposition,
1991.
12. Ferreira, S. B., Pilidis, P., and Nascimento, M. A. R., "A
Comparison of Different Gas Turbine Concepts Using
Biomass Fuel," International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine
Congress & Exhibition, 2001.
13. Ranasinghe, J. and Reistad, G. M., "Use of Ceramic Heat
Exchangers in Wood-Fueled Power Plants," ASME-JSME
Thermal engineering Conference, 1987.
14. Ferreira, S. B. and Pilidis, P., "Comparison of Externally Fired
and Internal Combustion Gas Turbine Using Biomass
Fuel," Journal of Energy Resources Technology - ASME,
No. December, 2001.
Notes: To be published in the ASME- JERT in December
2001
15. Lahaye, P. G. and Zabolotny, E. R., "Externally Fired
Combined Cycle (EFCC)," ASME Cogen Turbo Meeting,
1989.
16. Ranasinghe, J., Aceves-Saborio, S., and Reistad, G. M.,
"Irreversibility and Thermoeconomics Based Design
Optimization of a Ceramic Heat Exchanger," Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 111, 1989,
pp. 719-727.
5 Copyright © 2004 by ASME
 17. Solomon, P. R., Serio, M. A., Cosgrove, J. E., Pines, D. S.,
Zhao, Y., Buggeln, R. C., and Shamroth, S. J., "A Coal-
Fired Heat Exchanger for an Externally Fired Gas
Turbine," Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, Vol. Vol. 118, No. January, 1996, pp. 23-31.
18. Jolly, A. J., O'Doherty, T., and Bates, C. J., "COHEX: a
computer model for solving the thermal energy exchange
in an ultra high temperature heat exchanger. Part A:
computational theory," Applied Thermal Engineering,
Vol. 18, 1998, pp. 1263-1276.
19. Codeceira-Neto, A. and Pilidis, P., "A Comparative Exergy
Analysis of Advanced Power Cycles Using Biomass
Fuel," International Gas Turbine & Aeroengine
Congress & Exhibition , USA, 1999.
20. Carpentieri, A. E., Larson, E. D., and Woods, J., "Future
biomass-based electricity supply in Northeast Brazil,"
Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1993, pp. 149-173.
21. Filho, P. A. and Badr, O., "Biomass resources for energy in
North-Eastern Brasil," Applied Energy, Vol. 77, 2004, pp.
51-67.

6 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use