You are on page 1of 29

+ Models

RSER 499 1–29

OF
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

RO
2
3
Q1
Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation
of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete

DP
4
5 Ioannis Boukis a, Nikos Vassilakos b, Sotirios Karellas c,*,
Emmanuel Kakaras c
6 a
7 Helector SA, Kritis and Gravias 12, 16451 Athens, Greece
b
8 Network Consulting Group Ltd., Michalakopoulou 45, 11528 Athens, Greece

TE
c
9 Laboratory of Steam Boilers and Thermal Plants, National Technical University of Athens,
10 Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece
11 Received 11 September 2007; accepted 8 October 2007
12
13 EC
14
Abstract
15
16 As with most of the Greek Islands, Crete is not interconnected to the national power grid. Therefore,
17 power is generated locally and is based on a handful of ageing power plants owned by the Public Power
18 Corporation (PPC) and running on imported diesel fuel oil. However, the growing of the tourism and the
need for more power seems to become a problem for the electricity production in the island. On the other
RR

19
20 hand the high potential of biomass residues in the island creates new prospects for the energy concept of the
21 island. The purpose of this work is to examine the feasibility of a biomass-fired plant in the Heraklion
22 Prefecture, on the island of Crete taking into account the high biomass residues potential of this area.
23 # 2007 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
24 Keywords: Techno-economic analysis; Biomass residues; Feasibility study
CO

25

26
27
Contents
28
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
UN

29
30 2. Fuelling a biomass-fired plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
31 3. Examination of the feasibility of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
32 3.1. Biomass resources and exploitable biomass potential in the Heraklion prefecture. . . 000
33 3.1.1. Terms and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
34

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 7722810; fax: +30 210 7723663.
E-mail address: sotokar@mail.ntua.gr (S. Karellas).

1364-0321/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.006

Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I., et al., Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation
of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete, Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.006

+ Models
RSER 499 1–29

2 I. Boukis et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

OF
33
34 3.1.2. Available biomass quantities for energy production in the wider Heraklion prefec-
35 ture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
36 3.1.3. Technically available biomass quantities for energy production . . . . . . . . . 000
37 3.2. Biomass thermochemical conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000

RO
38 3.2.1. Combustion combined with steam turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
39 3.2.2. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
40 3.2.3. Gasification and Internal Combustion Engine (GasEng) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
41 3.2.4. Pyrolysis and Internal Combustion Engine (PyrEng). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
42 3.2.5. System efficiencies—a first approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
43 3.2.6. System capital costs—a first approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000

DP
44 3.2.7. Bioelectricity technology selected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
45 4. Techno-economic viability of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
46 4.1. Estimation of power plant economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
47 4.1.1. Financial figures of merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
48 4.1.2. Total Plant Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
49 4.1.3. Updated estimation of plant efficiency and capital costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
50 4.2. Estimation of the plant’s operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000

TE
51 4.2.1. Main operating parameters of the biomass combustion plant and Required Fuel Input
52 (RFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
53 4.2.2. Estimation of plant Total Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
54 4.2.3. Cost of Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
55 5. Viability of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
EC
5.1. Derivation of the project’s financial figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
56
57 5.2. Sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
58 6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
RR

59
1. Introduction
60
61 The demands of a thriving tourism industry and other commercial activities have
62 placed an increasing strain on the Cretan power system. Blackouts are a regular occurrence
CO

63 during the busy summer months, when tourism swells the population by two to three times.
64 Electricity demand on the island has risen steadily over the past 40 years, averaging an
65 annual growth of about 7–8% in the last decade (1993–2006), as shown in Fig. 1 [1,2]. The
UN

Fig. 1. Energy demand in Crete [1,2].

Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I., et al., Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation
of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete, Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.006

88 91 90  trimmed leaves and twigs. the cost of supplying power to Crete is 69 very high. of similar nature. to 107 generate energy. the residual pulp of the olive. which the farmers usually dispose of in a similar way to olive tree prunings CO 98 97 98 100 99 (open fires). 93 90 94 91 Moreover. RR 89 92  olive tree prunings. the vast majority of which arise from the extensive greenhouse farming in 101 104 the Heraklion Prefecture (Messara and Timpaki). + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. et al. a sensitivity and risk 113 analysis is also usually performed by some researchers in order to assess the economic 114 profitability of the project [3]. Boukis et al. which the mills must dispose of. 73 such as agricultural residues and by-products. 99 102 101  grape pomace. which is traditionally forwarded to large. 103 100  greenhouse residues. Additionally to this economical analysis. the major goal is to deliver energy 112 (electricity) at a reasonable cost. 3.rser. and more specifically in the TE 79 Heraklion Prefecture. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 3 OF 65 66 Public Power Corporation (PPC) has recognised the need to expand and modernise the 67 island’s system and has made plans for an additional 280 MWe of installed capacity (to add to 68 the current installed capacity of 532 MWe). Examination of the feasibility of the project 109 110 It is widely accepted that any project is feasible provided that the basic economic figures are 111 satisfactory. in particular: 84 86 85 87 86  olive husk. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. these identified as: 95 97 96  vineyard prunings. 105 102 UN 103 106 The utilisation of all or most of these residual and waste fuels in a central conversion plant. a number of other biomass residues. Therefore. the residual pulp of the grapes. since it includes transportation of fuel oil from the mainland. generated during the process of wine-making. Olive harvesting represents about 80% of all agricultural activities in 80 Crete.006 . secondary 87 89 88 processing facilities to yield olive pit. in the southern part of the Heraklion 81 Prefecture.. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). 72 It is envisaged that power from a base-load power plant fuelled by local biomass resources.1016/j.. can be readily used to co-fire a central power facility. 2. A EC number of by-products and residues arise from the harvesting and milling process.10. the Cretan system incurs a substantial net loss to the 71 company. the installation of a biomass-fired plant using this kind of fuel seems to be a DP 75 vital solution for the energy problem of Crete. which the farmers usually dispose of in large open fires within their farms. Since retail RO 70 electricity prices are set nationally. could also contribute to curbing the increasing environmental impact of the 108 island’s agricultural industry. 83 which are located throughout the island and which represent the primary processing facilities. will be cheaper than that from fossil-fuelled power 74 stations. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. 82 The Cretan farmers forward their annual olive harvests to the approximately 600 olive mills. doi:10. Fuelling a biomass-fired plant 76 77 The fuel feedstock to be provided to a potential biomass-fired power plant is based 78 on the extensive olive and olive oil production in Crete. 40% of which is located in the Messara Plain. However.2007. In the case of a biomass-fuelled power plant.

e. 132 However. these generic remarks have to be quantified and specific figures that will help decide 116 whether the conceived project is feasible or not. Biomass resources and exploitable biomass potential in the Heraklion prefecture UN 155 156 3.006 . et al. 3. Some of these figures are listed below: 117 119 118 RO 120 119  the project Internal Rate of Return (IRR). + Models RSER 499 1–29 4 I. some generic (rule-of-thumb) quantifications for these economic parameters TE 133 can be given. i. 163 There have been a number of studies to determine the exploitable biomass potential in the 164 wider Heraklion Prefecture.e. how much it costs to generate a unit of electricity. in general. with olive harvesting representing about 80% of all 160 agricultural activities in Crete.e. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF 114 115 However.1016/j. These quantifications.. which are listed below. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). as used in this study: 166 165 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. realised. 142 139  the Cost of Electricity should be lower that 75% of the price of electricity purchased by the grid 143 140 operator (which in the case of Crete is the Public Power Corporation). over 20 years.and fuel-specific. In this context. bonds or other industrial projects). in the 162 southern part of the Heraklion Prefecture.1. 123 126  the Cost of Electricity (COE). The above data will 152 provide vital information about the initial feasibility of the project and will be utilised at a later 153 stage to quantify the economic parameters that will determine the considered project’s viability/ 154 profitability. the COE should be 141 144 lower than about ¢s6 kWhe1. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation 167 168 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. whereby useful information is CO 151 derived. Terms and definitions 157 In the total of approximately 750 million productive olive trees worldwide. 142 145 RR 143 146 Moreover. 148 In this paper.e. 169 doi:10. expressed DP 124 127 in Eurocents/kWhe (or ¢s/kWhe). but rather as targets for commercial competitiveness: 135 137 136 137 139 138  the project IRR (referring to own capital) should be above 15%. The Island of Crete is one of the main centres for olive and 159 olive oil production in the Mediterranean. 161 60% of which are located in the Heraklion Prefecture and especially in the Messara Plain.. some basic terms are briefly defined below. the available quantities of biomass resources should be adequate to sustain a 147 minimum power plant size. so that the above targets are.1. system efficiencies and capital costs. 138 141 140 EC  the Specific Investment Cost should be lower than s2000 per installed kWe. an estimation of the capital cost of the plant. 123 121  the Specific Investment Cost (SIC). The inventory of biomass processes that convert the fuel energy to 150 electricity (thermochemical conversion) is also discussed.e. the wider 149 Heraklion Prefecture. There are around 26 million productive olive trees on the island. i. based on existing experience. 128 125 126 129 The economic parameters listed above may be regarded as important milestones to determine 130 the project feasibility. but it should also be noted that biomass projects are site. 131 rather than projects falling in some general industrial norm.1. available biomass resources are assessed in the region of interest. indeed. 134 should not be regarded as strict economic figures.2007. concerning process maturity.rser. must be higher than those offered 120 122 121 by other investment alternatives (i. expressed 122 125 124 as s/installed kWe. have to be referenced upon. 97% is 158 concentrated in the Mediterranean [4]. i. i. which.10. Boukis et al.

In the next processing step. A2). The very high organic load and acidity of these 191 discharges are very harmful to the environment. pulp-type residue (with a moisture content of 65–70% (w/w) 195 moisture). other residues derived from agricultural activities 170 172 171 (vineyards. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 5 OF 165 167 166 168  Biomass resources: In this study mainly the by-products and residues from the extensive olive 167 169 168 and olive oil activities (cultivation. 177 175 178 Based on the above. the wet olive husk is 196 processed in large. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. in central.. in order to sustain 174 176 an economically feasible power plant operation). see A5 in Table 1. is 181 carried out in olive mills in the Heraklion Prefecture (a total of approximately 550 mills) that 182 operate in the so-called 3-phase mode. with approximately 70% (w/w) moisture). with the fuel cost kept at a reasonable level. or even into the local waterways. secondary processing. etc. not to mention highly odiferous. However. 192 Alternatively. to produce secondary oil and 197 exhausted wet olive husk (EWOH.2007. centrifugal plants (the so-called repasso units). secondly.006 . which.rser. are being disposed to holding 190 ponds on site. greenhouses. namely the generation of vast quantities of 3-phase olive mill effluents (see A2 in Table 1). 189 EC which in an unregulated way. without any extensive treatment. well established 172 175 173 logistics) and economically (i.e.e. doi:10. from olives to first-quality (virgin) olive oil. see A5) Residues from other agricultural activities B1 Vineyard prunings B2 Grape pomace (clusters) F1 Greenhouse residues a Biomass fuel type designation follows the general categorisation pattern. 187 An increasingly acute environmental problem is created in the 3-phase olive mill production 188 chain. milling. large secondary TE 185 processors.e. In the following 184 stage. Boukis et al. 198 The advantage of the 2-phase olive mills. i. whereas the olive mill produces olive oil. etc. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). which are extensively applied in Spain [6] is the 199 elimination of the 3-phase generated liquid effluents (i. a categorisation of biomass residues is carried out and presented in DP 179 Table 1. 180 The vast majority of primary processing.. et al. namely the 2-phase olive mill. this method generates CO Table 1 Q6 Biomass categories and designation for the various fuel types Biomass fuel type designationa Biomass category By-products and residues from olive oil processing activities UN A1 Olive husk (from 3-phase olive mills) A2 Liquid effluents from 3-phase olive mills A3 Olive tree prunings (branches) A4 Leaves and twigs (collected in the olive mills) A5 Exhausted watery olive husk—EWOH (from 2-phase mills) A6 Olive pit or kernel (from secondary processing of olive husk) A7 Olive pit/kernel (from secondary processing of EWOH. effluents and 183 olive husk (the residual pulp of the olive with a 45–50% (w/w) moisture content). Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. first introduced by the author Vassilakos [5].) are defined as biomass resources. RO 173  Exploitable biomass potential (also referred to as initially available biomass potential): The 171 174 quantities of biomass that can be obtained technically (i.e. production.) in the 170 169 Heraklion Prefecture and. with secured. an important variation of the traditional olive oil production chain (based on the 193 3-phase olive mill primary processing) has been proposed.10. the so-called wet olive husk. where it is thermally processed to second-quality (refined) olive oil and to olive pit (a 186 stony-type by-product with a 12–15% (w/w) moisture content).1016/j. RR 194 besides virgin oil produces a watery. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. olive husk is forwarded to secondary processing units.

796 18.000 – – – 70.2007.917 31. (4) NTUA (2001) performed the study for a Call for Tenders released by the Greek Regulating Authority for Electricity (RAE) and considered only olive pit (A5) [11].400 21.1016/j.10. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. Boukis et al.762 5.820 10.158 – 6.158 6. TE DP RO OF .996 RR ALTENER 26.796 – 18. (5) Zografakis (2003) did not consider olive husk (A1) [1]. 246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239 238 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 6 RSER 499 1–29 + Models doi:10. with regard to the exploitable (initially available) biomass potential for power generation in the wider Heraklion Prefecture (in dry tonnes/year) Study Fuel UN Olive husk Liquid effluents Olive tree Leaves– Olive pit Vineyard Grape Green-house TOTAL (3-phase) (3-phase) prunings twigs (3-phase) prunings pomace residues A1 A2 A3 A4 A6 B1 B2 F1 (dry tonnes per year) VIOTOPOS IMPAX – 26.555 120.405 12. (1997) did not considered olive pit (A5) [8. (3) The ALTENER Study (2000) was based on data initially provided by IMPAX and further verified during a 2-year dedicated field survey by NETWORK [10].486 21.A.9].872 9.500 120.996 NTUA – – – – 70.534 22.rser.500 82...486 9.006 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. (2) IMPAX S. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation I.333 – 10.960 – 5.391 123. et al.429 14.429 18.172 EC (1) VIOTOPOS (1993) initial data have been corrected for moisture and availability [7].375 14.333 48. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx Table 2 Q7 Results from previous assessments.294 23.291 14.294 CO – 23.000 Zografakis – 26. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).

logistics steps. In Spain. prior to end-conversion to energy Fuel type Stage efficiency (%) Overall technical availability (%) Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 UN Olive tree prunings—A3 95 80 95 95 95 65. it is a strategic choice. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 7 OF 199 200 large quantities of exhausted.rser.1.16 1: Collection.. 3: transport. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. wet olive husk (A5). RO 204 Whether the olive oil production chain will be based on the 3-phase or the 2-phase olive mill 205 configuration. or in a centralised one (large repasso plants. A realistic estimation of the technical 228 availability of each of the above identified.31 Grape pomace—B2 95 100 95 95 95 81. 4: storage and 5: drying.10. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. coupled with energy 208 conversion units). The technical availability is further 225 connected to organic matter losses during the various stages of feedstock logistics.2. 213 216 215 b) the potential relief of the ever increasing power demand problem in Crete. which reflects the political decision to treat the liquid wastes 206 generated by the olive oil industry.59 in the olive mills—A4 Olive pit (3-phase) olive 95 100 95 95 100 85.45 Greenhouse residues—F1 95 100 95 95 90 77. where a drying step of the EWOH is usually integrated 203 in the energy plant.2007. prior to their RR 226 final energetic utilisation in the power plant. is shown in Table 3. doi:10.3.16 Leaves and twigs collected 95 80 95 95 100 68. according to the different step of logistics. et al. for the different fuel types considered 229 in this study.1016/j.006 . that can be 217 220 initially available for a central biomass-to-energy plant. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. These discrete logistics steps can be identified as 227 collection. and TE 217 214 c) the environmental advantages that could be derived (at least partially) by further exploiting the 215 218 olive oil industry-generated by-products and effluents. 201 to secure the claimed environmental benefits. Boukis et al. either in a decentralised manner (autonomous treatment of 207 effluents in the olive mills). DP 209 3. this is carried out in large energy plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). Available biomass quantities for energy production in the wider Heraklion prefecture Due to: 210 212 211 212 214 213 a) the substantial biomass quantities generated in the Heraklion Prefecture. storage and drying. 2: communition. in what 224 concerns resource accessibility and competitive uses. communition. CO Table 3 Q8 Technical availability of the various biomass fuel types. 219 216 a number of efforts have been undertaken to assess the exploitable biomass potential. 221 The results of the most serious of these efforts are briefly summarised in Table 2. Technically available biomass quantities for energy production 223 The above data refer to the initial (or exploitable) availability of biomass fuel types. 202 suitably coupled to the large repasso units. which has to be disposed or further exploited.74 pit-kernel (the dried by-product derived by the secondary olive husk processing—A6 Vineyard prunings—B1 95 90 95 95 95 73. EC 222 3. transport.1..

/ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF Table 4 Technically Available Fuel Quantities (TAFQ) for biomass power production in the Heraklion Prefecture Fuel # Biomass fuel type Biomass quantities Fuel LHV Plant technical data (preliminary) (dry tonnes/year) (MJ/dry kg) RO Initially Technically Thermal power Electrical power available Available (TAFQ) input (MWth) output (MWe) A3 Olive tree prunings 22. Biomass thermochemical conversion technologies 247 CO 248 The three process concepts that have been investigated.2007. 242 245 .1016/j. In the former Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. an overall availability of 82. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. Boukis et al.21 A4 Leaves and twigs 12. fuel ash content may represent a potential technical problem to fluid 259 beds.15 1.782 19..10.05 6. et al. On the other hand. are: 237 239 238 240 239 . whereas if 263 condensed at a higher pressure. especially related to their low NOx 258 emissions.77 B1 Vineyard prunings 14.762 10.006 . 2: 250 3. Fluid bed combustors are very tolerant 256 of variations in both feed size and moisture content (up to 30% on a w/w basis).71 DP B2 Grape pomace 5. fluid bed 257 combustors exhibit superior environmental performance.The Lower Heating Value (LHV) for the various fuel types are based on existing literature data 240 242 241 [12].69 1.138 18. the most popular configurations being either grate (stoker) or fluid bed UN 253 designs.00 229 230 Based on the above.84 4.2.. RR 241 244 243 .391 7. due to the increased risk of ash sintering leading to bed material agglomeration.08 Total 96. the Technically 232 Available Fuel (biomass type) Quantities (or TAFQ) for power production in the Heraklion 233 Prefecture.45%).291 26.41 A6 Olive pit/kernel 31.Power plant operating hours/year: 7223 (or. 261 Steam is produced in the boiler and expanded through a steam turbine connected to a generator 262 producing electricity. 260 The principle of a conventional biomass-fuelled power plant is based on the Rankine Cycle.62 2. The steam is then condensed (with cooling water or air). useful steam may be recovered (cogeneration).246 16.55 52. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).12 20.2.822 17. Some preliminary data for a potential biomass- 234 fuelled power plant are also given in this table.81 F1 Greenhouse residues 9.872 4. 246 243 244 3.599 17.rser.638 73.829 20.0%. Moreover.76 4. 254 Although grate-fired boilers are the norm for older biomass-fired plants. fluid beds are rapidly 255 becoming the preferred technology for biomass combustion.405 14.1. + Models RSER 499 1–29 8 I.860 18.Net plant electrical efficiency (%): 23.14 3. are listed in Table 4 that follows.52 0. carried out by Zografakis [1].84 7. developed or implemented for the 249 generation of electricity from biomass are presented in Fig.13 9.16 12. doi:10. 236 EC The specific assumptions considered here.917 8. and taking into consideration the estimates of the initially available TE 231 quantities for the different biomass fuel types.42 1. upon which the power plant preliminary data have been derived. based on specific assumptions regarding plant 235 availability and net electrical efficiency. Combustion combined with steam turbine 251 The combustion of solid biomass is fully established and already widely used in various 252 bioenergy applications.

producing additional RR 276 electricity. The 287 pyrolysis vapors and gases pass out of the reactor (pyrolyser) and are quenched (rapidly 288 condensed) in a liquid recovery system. Process configurations to be discussed (thicker boundaries denote more advance applications.5 MWe. The clean fuel gas (a lean fuel with a LHV in the range of 3–5 MJ/N m3 for 273 autothermal and up to 10 MJ/N m3 for allothermal gasification) is combusted in a gas turbine and 274 hot pressurised flue gases are expanded. TE 266 3. A thorough review of recent advances in 295 Fast Pyrolysis technology can be found in literature [17–19]. the energy 294 carrier) may be decoupled from electricity generation.2. 2. Pyrolysis and Internal Combustion Engine (PyrEng) UN 285 Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of biomass in the absence of an oxidizing agent.g. a 269 Circulating Fluidized Bed—CFB-type reactor). with the provision of sub-stoichiometric 270 air (autothermal). in that fuel production (pyrolysis oil. or fluidized bed or CFB type.2. in a single phase.2007. suitable for sizes up to 1. The process which maximises the liquid fraction is known as Fast Pyrolysis. Gasification and Internal Combustion Engine (GasEng) 279 Relatively dry biomass (with a moisture content of 13–15%. doi:10. in which case cogeneration of heat is possible. The fuel gas is cleaned of tars and solid particulates. The 282 clean fuel gas is then combusted in a modified diesel engine (Internal Combustion Engine—ICE) 283 connected to a generator producing electricity. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 9 OF RO DP Fig. 291 For power productions the pyrolysis oils are employed as a fuel in an Internal Combustion 292 Engine which is connected to a generator producing electricity. The fuel gas is cleaned of alkali metals and solid particulates at an elevated 272 temperature. more power will be produced and in the latter case by-product heat (process or district heat) 265 is available [13]. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.2. e. raising steam in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator 275 (HRSG) [16].e.2. i. w/w) is fed into a gasifier CO 280 (moving bed. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I.rser. et al. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 267 The principle of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant is as follows: dried 268 (approximately 10–20% (w/w) moisture content) biomass is fed into a gasifier (in most cases.3. 263 264 case. 278 3.10. Battelle [14]. suitable for larger 281 plants). where fuel gas is produced.1016/j.. leaving a solid residue of char and ash. The steam turbine can be either condensing (producing only electricity). Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). or back 277 pressure. The pyrolysis liquid is a homogeneous mixture of 289 organic compounds and water.006 .4. 284 3. or water steam (allothermal. whereby 286 the volatile components are vaporised by heating. Boukis et al. Cogeneration of heat is also possible. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.. in commercial terms). where. and is the product of interest for power 290 generation. BioHPR [15]) fuel gas is 271 EC produced. 293 Fast Pyrolysis is an interesting process. The steam produced drives a conventional steam cycle.

excluding any grants or subsidies.. The costs are Total Plant Costs (TPC) or ‘‘turn- 312 key’’ costs. Boukis et al. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.2. to give a clear advantage of this 306 technology over the other biomass systems. et al.2. the IGCC efficiencies rise. Similarly. at large capacities (>15 MWe). are presented in Fig.5. as described below.rser. The EC 302 engine-based generators (PyrEng and GasEng) are relatively efficient even in smaller systems 303 (<5 MWe). doi:10. + Models RSER 499 1–29 10 I. System efficiencies—a first approach TE 297 The system efficiencies for the four biomass-to-electricity technologies analysed above. Specific Investment Cost (SIC) as a function of system capacity. 4.006 . 295 296 3. Net system efficiency as a function of system capacity. the TPC for the UN Fig.2007. 3 (adapted from Bridgwater et al. Thus.1016/j. 301 The difference in sensitivity to scale of the four biomass conversion systems is noticeable. 310 3. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). the RR 307 Combustion system’s poor performance. is counter-balanced by the greater rate of change in the system’s efficiency at medium 309 (approximately 7–10 MWe) and higher power ratings. 3. 4. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF RO DP Fig. In contrast. in comparison to that of the engine systems at small 308 scale. Moreover. System capital costs—a first approximation CO 311 System capital costs are compared in Fig.10.6. at 298 capacities between 1 and 20 MWe. the IGCC and Combustion system efficiencies improve considerably as 305 system capacity increases. [20]). Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. defined as ratios of net electricity output to 300 the total fuel energy (fuel LHV) delivered to the power plant. 299 The efficiencies that are compared are net efficiencies. however their efficiencies do not improve significantly as the system capacity 304 increases..

10. Bioelectricity technology selected 325 Based on the discussions and findings described above.1016/j. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation 361 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. as a result. it is concluded that a combustion plant of about 329 8 MWe installed capacity appears to be the most appropriate size for the specific application 330 discussed in this study. RR 339 337 2. In the continuation of this article. no single system is the most suitable for all scales and DP 322 optimisation is. 344 341 CO 342 345 Concluding. 334 335 technology of all four systems/technologies that were considered for the conversion of 335 336 biomass energy to electricity (i. 324 3. in comparison to the other three systems 318 considered here. the Specific Investment Costs are leveled off at the power range selected above (8–12 MWe). the alternative biomass conversion technologies that can TE 327 be employed and the implications that the chosen scale (system capacity) of the biomass power 328 plant can have on efficiency and capital costs. i. These learning effects are not 315 yet included in the costs for the other three systems and. it may be stated that the selected biomass power plant size (8 MWe) constitutes 346 the best possible compromise between fuel availability in the wider Heraklion Prefecture 347 (corresponding to around 67% of the Technically Available Fuel Quantities) and power plant 348 economics (characterised by a leveling off of the plant’s Specific Investment Cost). required. 352 more detailed estimates will be derived for a biomass combustion plant with an installed capacity of approximately 8 MWe.2. 359 362  A discussion of the sensitivity analysis of the project. on the technically available biomass 326 resources in the Heraklion Prefecture. of a biomass Combustion 338 341 340 system is an acceptable compromise among those of the power systems considered. 339 342 3.e. there is a substantially higher technological risk for the other 336 338 337 three options). the Combustion system costs are based on 100th plant costs. 340 343 indicating that economies of scale are already significant at this power range. doi:10.rser. Hence. Techno-economic viability of the project UN 349 350 The estimations described up to now have been derived taking into consideration generic 351 studies on plant conversion efficiency and system capital costs. 3 and 4 reveals that higher efficiency is only achieved 320 through higher capital expenditure. et al.2007. commercially. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. It should be realised that no single system combines high 321 efficiency with low cost. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 11 OF 312 313 Combustion system are very well established..e. the net efficiency (21–23%). which simply means that RO 317 Combustion is an already mature technology. This choice is justified below: 331 333 332 EC 334 333 1. 359 357  An estimation of all the separate cost items that comprise the Total Operating Costs (TOCs). This has been made possible through many 314 years of experience in combustors. their costs are higher. 360 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. 4.006 . 319 A comparison of the curves in Figs. 358 361 360 with special emphasis to fuel costs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). depending on how system efficiencies and capital costs change 323 with scale. combustion technology is by far the most advanced and readily available. at the power range of 8–12 MWe. the conversion of agricultural biomass produced in the Heraklion Prefecture to electricity. boilers and steam cycles. indeed. 316 Hence.7. The techno-economic viability of the project includes: 353 355 354 356 355  An estimation of plant economics concentrating on updated figures of plant efficiency and on 356 358 357 expected Total Plant Costs. Boukis et al..

This figure of merit is frequently used to 386 analyse retrofit opportunities.1016/j.e. EC 383 Payback Period: A payback calculation compares revenues with costs and determines the 384 length of time required to recoup the initial investment. The advantage of IRR is that.. to yield a value in ¢s kWh1.. 374 Cost of Electricity: To calculate a levelised cost of energy (electricity) or COE. expenses. The levelised COE 379 defines the stream of revenues that minimally meets the requirements for equity return and 380 minimum debt coverage ratio. et al. allowed costs. 367 therefore it is widespread used in the international literature [21]. + Models RSER 499 1–29 12 I. and returns are added to find a stream of revenues that meets the 382 return criteria. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. design. Estimation of power plant economics 363 364 4. supervision 10–20% of DPC 15% DPC Management overheads 5–20% DPC 10% DPC Installed Plant Costs (IPC) 125% DPC Commissioning 1–10% IPC 5% IPC Contingency 0–50% IPC 10% IPC Contractor’s fees 5–15% IPC 10% IPC Interest during construction 7–15% IPC 10% IPC Total Plant Cost (TPC) 135% IPC 169% DPC Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.1. 369 Internal Rate of Return: Internal Rate of Return is defined as the discount rate at 370 which the after-tax NPV is zero. the revenue 375 stream of an energy project is discounted using a standard rate (or possibly the project’s IRR). Traditional utility revenue-requirement analyses are cost-based.10.1. because it recognises the time value of money.1. 372 unlike NPV. RR Table 5 Q9 Components of capital cost estimates Cost component Usual range of costs Cost factor used in the present study Major equipment-item cost CO +erection +piping +instruments +electrical +civil works +buildings +lagging UN Direct Plant Costs (DPC) 100% DPC Engineering. 376 to yield an NPV. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).2007.006 . 381 i. doi:10. The NPV method is a valuable indicator. Boukis et al. A Simple Payback Period is often 385 calculated without regard to the time value of money. The calculated IRR is examined to determine if it exceeds a DP 371 minimally acceptable return. offering incremental benefits and end-user applications. Projects whose returns show 368 positive NPVs are attractive.rser. often called the hurdle rate. Financial figures of merit. The four primary figures of merit are: 365 Net Present Value: Net Present Value (NPV) is the sum of all years’ discounted after-tax cash RO 366 flows. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF 362 4. This NPV is levelised to an annual payment and then divided by the project’s annual energy output. The COE is often used by project TE 377 378 evaluators to develop first-order assessments of a project’s attractiveness. its percentage results allow projects of vastly different sizes to be easily 373 compared.

6. civil works. are shown in 407 Fig.1. than generic approaches [20]. RR 411 Fig. Detailed studies [22] have 398 estimated more precisely. management. 5. 406 EC representing accurately the capital costs of state-of-the-art combustion technology. all capital cost items have been incorporated in the so- 388 called Total Plant Cost (or ‘‘turn-key’’ cost). 5. 390 buildings.3. they include the costs of the basic 389 equipment plus costs for erection. 392 TPC has been used. piping. DP 396 The capital or investment cost reported in this study. instrumentation. commissioning. Updated estimation of plant efficiency and capital costs. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. It is important to recognise that capital costs can be quoted at various 394 levels that include or exclude certain components of the TPC. so that realistic estimates of the total cost of constructing a working 393 system can be calculated. doi:10. et al. 403 The net electric efficiency of modern condensing power plants based on woody biomass. 405 Power plant investment costs of power plant projects that have been recently realised. electrical works. As such. These different levels are further 395 indicated in Table 5. see above) of biomass combustion plants. 415 Based on the above findings. as a 400 function of plant size.2. as far as the plant’s efficiency and its capital cost are concerned: 416 418 417 417 418 418 419 420 421 UN 422 Fig. 397 4.1..006 . represents the Total Plant Cost.2007. From this graph.1016/j. is shown in Fig. In this study. for 408 a fully operating power plant. 412 the importance of scale (plant size) is highlighted: Specific Investment Costs decrease from 413 about s2500 kWe1 to approximately s1250 kWe1. the following figures can be derived for the selected 8 MWe CO biomass combustion plant. These data are based on biomass-fired power plant projects that have TE 401 been realised and represent the current industrial state-of-the-art in biomass-fired Rankine 402 power plants. 7 depicts the Specific Investment Cost as a function of power output.10. Net electrical plant efficiency as a function of plant size. contingency and interest during RO 391 construction. engineering. Total Plant Cost. as power output is increased from 3 to 414 60 MWe. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 13 OF 386 387 4. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I.rser. 409 The cost breakdown (as a percentage of TOC) for the different plant components is given in 410 Table 6. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.. Boukis et al. It is stressed that the investment cost refers to the Total Plant Cost paid by the customer. the net electrical efficiency and the 399 capital costs (referred to as Total Plant Costs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). as a 404 function of plant size.

10.006 . an 8 MWe power plant fuelled primarily by the 425 residues and by-products of the olive oil industry in the Heraklion Prefecture. Boukis et al.75 feedwater system.75 Water-steam cycle. based on fuel LHV. + Models RSER 499 1–29 14 I. lie in the range between CO 420 421 423 s1600 and 1800 kWe1. the plant’s Specific Investment Cost will.5 419 422 million. most likely. Specific Investment Cost (SIC) for biomass-fired power plants as a function of plant size. the net electrical Table 6 UN Cost breakdown of the major power plant components Task identity Percentage of total cost Boiler plant. stack 47.50 Turbine plant (cooling tower included) 13.2007. i. 424 422 In the specific case examined in this study.rser.1016/j. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF RO DP Fig. TE EC RR Fig. doi:10.00 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.. 7. Investment costs for biomass power plants as a function of plant size. 6. et al.75 Total 100. auxiliary systems and equipment Automation 12.e. 418 421  the plant’s capital cost (hereby denoting the Total Plant Cost) will be between s13 and 14.e. 13. condensate system..75 Others 8. fuel handing. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). 416 418 417 420 419  the net electrical efficiency of the plant will be between 22 and 24%. i. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.50 Civil works 3.

e. i. The main operating parameters for the 8 MWe biomass combustion plant. 4. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.0 Levelised yearly availability (h/year) 7223 Electricity self consumptionc (%) 6.2007. Table 8 Estimation of fuel requirements for the biomass combustion plant Mean fuel mix LHV (on a dry basis) (MJ/dry kg) 18.288 Hourly fuel input (on a dry basis) (dry tonnes/h) 6.e. as is)-RFI(w) (wet tonnes/year) 76. 437 Consequently.000. Estimation of the plant’s operating costs 433 RR 434 4.00000 DP a Refers to the annual percentage of time that the plant is available. Main operating parameters of the biomass combustion plant and Required Fuel Input 435 (RFI). are actually available.00 Equipment availabilitya (%) 85. i. is given in Table 8.2.006 .0 Annual electricity production (net) (kWh/year) 53.rser. the Total Plant Cost will be 432 approximately s12. 431 EC Baring the above figure for the Specific Investment Cost in mind. are listed in Table 7. 425 TE 426 plant efficiency will be set at 23%.00 Thermal power (MJ/s) 34.. Boukis et al.80 Plant availability (overall) (%) 82.10.0 RO Fuel availabilityb (%) 97. This last figure is equal to the maximum eligible 428 SIC set by the most important subsidy programme applied to energy investments in Greece. while the plant’s Specific Investment Cost. as is) (wet tonnes/h) 10.255.0 Grid lossesc (%) 2.74 UN Installed power (MWe) 8.686 Mean fuel moisture content (as is) (% w/w) 37.45 Required Fuel Input (on a dry basis)-RFI(d) (dry tonnes/year) 48. d By the Public Power Corporation (PPC). doi:10. b Refers to the annual percentage of time the Technically Available Fuel Quantities (TAFQ). not idle for repairs and overhaul. as is) (MJ/wet kg) 11. will be set at s1614 kWe .00 Plant net electrical efficiency (%) 23.180 Electricity purchase priced (s/kWh) 0.920.625 Mean fuel max LHV (wet.744 Hourly fuel input (wet.20 MJ/dry kg.1. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 15 OF Table 7 Main operating parameters of the 8 MWe biomass combustion plant Plant installed power (MWe) 8.2. considered 436 here for the Heraklion Prefecture. referring to the 1 427 Q2 Total Plant Cost. et al. based on the figures presented in Table 7 and assuming a plant net electrical 438 efficiency of 23% based on feedstock (biomass) mean Lower Heating Value of 17.. 430 implemented under the Community Support Framework III for Greece). c These figures are derived as mean values from the operation of similar biomass plants [22]. CO 439 the yearly fuel requirements for plant operation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).50 Total ash outflow (100% capture) (tonnes/year) 2173 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. for 429 the period 2000–2006 (namely the Operational Programme for ‘‘Competitiveness’’—OPC.79 Fuel ash content (on a dry basis) (% w/w) 4.08 Required Fuel Input (wet.07779 Power capacity creditd (s/kW/month) 0. the Required Fuel Input. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I.1016/j.

has to be determined. i. UN 475 476 4. for the removal of odors and 482 other noxious gases) required for treating flue gases. + Models RSER 499 1–29 16 I. with a mean 450 moisture content of approximately 37%. and assuming five shifts (three normal operating shifts + one back-up 468 shift + one safety shift).2. taking into consideration the actual moisture content of the different fuels.5 and 2.2. i. doi:10. which denotes the Required Fuel Input with regard to dry biomass.2. plant personnel is expected to be higher. in total 15 operating staff for the day- 469 round operation of the plant. the power plant operating costs.000 wet tonnes/year. Boukis et al. for a biomass combustion plant 467 sized at about 8 MWe.e.2. It is then 472 estimated that there is a 25% increase in personnel above normal.387.3. DP 451 The above estimated RFI values for the proposed biomass power plant correspond 452 to approximately 66% of the Technically Available Fuel Quantities that may be harnessed 453 from the Heraklion Prefecture.1016/j. technical availability and actual plant requirements) adopted in this study.2007.0% of the Total Plant Cost.1. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF 439 440 It is noted that two different values for RFI are given depending on the moisture content of the final fuel mix: 441 443 442 443 445 444 i) RFI(d). where the fuel procurement period is limited to 3–4 months and fuel yard 471 management may prove very demanding.10. as well as the costs related to sand 483 replenishment (in case a fluid bed combustor is employed). 478 479 4.e.000 dry tonnes/year or approximately 78. The summation of all these operating cost items yields the Total Operating 462 Costs for the biomass combustion plant under consideration. 447 445 448 Hence. Estimation of plant Total Operating Costs 458 Once the capital costs of the biomass plant have been estimated. Item 3: consumables 480 The major cost when considering the consumables for a biomass-fired plant are the costs for 481 the chemicals (lime. et al. Item 2: Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs Annual maintenance costs are assumed to be between 1.e.. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). 455 biomass supply is not considered to be a limiting factor for the smooth development of the 456 project. TE 457 4.2. This correlation estimates that. The 460 operating costs for a biomass combustion plant may be categorised into the items that are 461 EC described below. the total number of persons 473 is estimated at about 20 people. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. and active carbon.24]. 3 people are required per shift. The calculation of the plant’s annual 484 cost for consumables is shown in Table 10. RO 444 446 ii) RFI(w). the annual fuel consumption of an 8 MWe biomass-fired combustion plant will be 449 approximately 48.2. for flue gas desulphurisation..2. The required plant personnel and the associated costs (including 474 all benefits) are summarised in Table 9. another important factor for 459 the feasibility of the project. 463 4. Given the broad safety margins (with regard to initial 454 availability. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.006 . So 477 they are assumed to be 2% of TPC or s258.rser.2. i. Item 1: personnel (labour) cost 464 A generalized correlation for the number of required operating personnel per shift as a RR 465 function of power plant capacity has been developed under relevant International Energy Agency 466 (IEA) investigations [23.2. In the case of the biomass-fired plant under consideration in the CO 470 Heraklion Prefecture.

562 3b Lime 30.rser. Item 5: ash disposal costs 493 Ash disposal costs are associated with the costs necessary for the treatment of slag (bottom UN ash) and the solid residues derived from the treatment of flue gases (fly ash).10.100 550 3..443 a Based on the net (i.500 750 2. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.250 Maintenance staff costs 3 6.700 541.000 42.100 550 1.1016/j.100 Administration staff costs 4 9.875 26. In the case considered in this study. consumption (kg/MWh Consumption Price Costsa net electricity delivered) (tonnes/year) (s/tonne) (s/year) 3a Sand 24.525 133.250 115.250 625 1.252 Total annual cost of consumables 161.000 84.180.500 Operators 5 1.250 625 1. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. Total costb.500 Administrative assistant 1 1. doi:10.180 kWhe per year (see Table 7).650 23.300 46.800 a Figure includes all direct payroll overheads and are based on 50% of salary.006 .000 3. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).175 72..2.5.300 650 9.500 750 2. the annual overhead costs are expected to 490 be approximately s54.000 252.5 27 723 19. et al.250 Fuel-handling staff costs 3 5. 487 4. Considering that Table 10 Calculation of the plant’s annual cost for the consumables Chemical Spec.000 Maintenance manager 1 1.255. which is 486 considered to be that of a fluid bed combustor (sand replenishment). Boukis et al.000 Loaders/fuel system operators 2 1. 491 492 4.750 Accounts manager 1 1.000 1.e.250 DP Electricians 1 1.000 Fuel manager 1 1.875 26.2.0 1598 73 116.500 Operating staff costs 10 18.250 625 1. b Based on 14 months.875 26.750 875 2.450 TE Plant manager 1 2. persons month (s) per month (s) per month (s) per year (s) RO Shift supervisors 5 1.500 Mechanics 1 1. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 17 OF Table 9 Q10 Estimation of plant personnel costs (monthly and annual) Personnel Number of Salary.2007. per Benefitsa.0 1278 20 25.625 36.2.200 Utility 1 1. 483 484 It should be noted that the above costs are based on information provided to the author by RR 485 operators of similar plants worldwide and constitute the maximum consumables cost.750 136.4.250 31. Item 4: general costs (overheads) 488 General costs are usually calculated as overheads of the personnel costs and are assumed to be CO 489 10% of these costs.2. delivered to the grid) annual electricity production of 53.350 Total personnel costs 20 EC 38. Total cost.100 550 8.629 3c Active carbon 0.250 31.

doi:10.2007. 516 514  the cost of chemicals associated with the conditioning of the steam cycle working medium (i. s129. due to the local scarcity of water). the annual utilities cost is. 520 517 521 518 These utilities costs are assumed to account yearly for about 1% of Total Plant Costs. It is 500 further noted that the above costs constitute the maximum ash treatment cost. Item 6: utilities 505 The main utility requirement is power to run all the plant’s auxiliary equipment (pumps. 523 524 4. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. such as diesel costs necessary for plant start-ups. especially in regard to fuel costs 526 and process uncertainties. 504 4.).00 1304 35 c 45. are calculated in Table 11.2.2..and outflows Percentage of ash input Tonnes/yeara Treatment cost (s/tonne) s/year Ash input (in fuel) 100. as a ‘‘loss of revenue’’ 509 through lower delivered electricity to the power grid. usually 6% of the gross power output. indirectly. Other costs related to utilities include: CO 510 512 511 513 512  the cost of cooling water (which is limited in the case studied here. that is s119. In order to account for these uncertainties.193. compared to a grate-type 503 combustor.2. + Models RSER 499 1–29 18 I.064. a 10% overrun is assumed 527 on the sum of all operating costs (except capital amortisation and fuel costs).6. In the 522 case considered here.006 . 498 The above figure for fly ash treatment (s35 tonne1) is a figure found in the literature for 499 the treatment of fly ash derived from the operation of Municipal Waste Incinerators.2. as presented in Table 7) and. Item 7: contingency 525 Operating costs estimates are subject to various uncertainties.00 869 0b 0 Fly ash 60.rser. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). 528 this constitutes an annual ‘‘expense’’ equal to the sum of the above (i. thus.e. feeding systems. 1–6) cost items.10. 516 519 UN  other costs. which is 501 considered to be that of a fluid bed combustor. 507 since it has been calculated as a ‘‘loss’’ of efficiency. RR 506 blowers.. Boukis et al. et al.00 2173 RO Bottom ash 40.632 Total annual ash disposal costs 45. fans. etc.e. the annual costs associated with the treatment of these TE 497 waste streams prior to their final disposal. c Fly ash needs treatment (usually inertisation with cement) prior to landfilling. 515 518 517 water). b It is assumed that bottom ash can be safely landfilled or can be used as a construction material in a variety of DP applications. because this type of combustor generates 502 EC larger quantities of fly ash. 493 494 (in the case of a fluid bed combustor) 40% of the total solid residues is withdrawn as slag 495 (cyclones and boiler heating surfaces) and that the remaining 60% is removed as fly ash (in dust 496 filters and other gas-cleaning devices). / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF Table 11 Disposal costs (for solid residues) In.7. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. This cost item has already been accounted for. since an air-cooled 513 515 514 condenser will be employed. due to severe bed material attrition. of the 508 biomass plant (self consumption. In the present case.1016/j.632 a Based on an annual ash production of 2173 tonnes (see Table 8). hence.

579 578 579 580 580 Fuel type A4—leaves and twigs 581 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. 558 561 3. Item 9-I: fuel acquisition costs 567 With regard to the acquisition cost of the various fuels considered here (Tables 1 and 2).10. 566 4. fuel transportation cost.1016/j. interest and depreciation for the capital investment).2.875. TE 542 546 545  the interest rate is expected to be 5%. doi:10. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I.. Given that: 537 539 538 540 539  the Specific Investment Cost (SPC) for the investment will be approximately s1614 kWe1. 532 The annuity (i. on estimations derived from dedicated market surveys in the Heraklion Prefecture [10].934 year1.2007. et al. to be s501. 543 547  the loan payback period is expected to be 10 years. L the borrowed capital (million s). namely: RR 554 556 555 556 558 557 1. The IMPAX fuel assessment study [8] has determined 577 a max.9. i. 541 544 543  the loan is expected to be 30% of the investment cost (or s3. the UN 568 following assumptions can be made: 570 569 570 571 571 Fuel types A3 and B1—olive tree prunings and vineyard prunings 572 573 574 The current practice for handling these types of residues is mainly open burning in the fields.2. as 540 542 541 discussed previously. 575 they have a negative cost. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). when it comes 553 to calculating the Total Operating Cost. fuel processing cost (communition and/or drying). / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 19 OF 528 529 4.rser. the 565 various fuel-cost components are estimated as described in the following paragraphs. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.006 . acquisition cost for the above fuel types of s8. X.2. on similar biomass feedstocks and. r the interest rate (%) and n is DP 536 the loan payback period (years). 564 also.80 (wet tonne)1. when a suitable fuel market will be established.e. the fuel cost consists of three different components. 548 544 549 545 then. (1). Boukis et al. However. where is). EC 551 4.2. fuel acquisition cost (as is.799). Item 8: capital amortisation 530 It is assumed that around 30% of the total capital cost (or TPC) required to construct the plant 531 will be borrowed over 15 years at an annual interest rate of 5% (nominal). Item 9: fuel cost 552 The cost of biomass feedstocks (fuel cost) is considered a variable component.2. in order to determine the Cost of Electricity. 562 559 CO 563 560 Based on the authors’ experience from similar studies [5]. 557 560 559 2. (1): RO rð1 þ rÞn X ¼L (1) 534 533 ð1 þ rÞn  1 535 where X is the annuity (s/year). these types 576 of biomass fuels will no longer be for free.e. the annuity for the proposed biomass-fuelled combustion plant is calculated from 546 550 Eq.. Moreover. is given by Eq.10.2.8. from the feedstock production site to the biomass combustion plant.

it will be 603 relatively easy to establish a convenient market for them.5) = 2 h 617 625  Number of schedules per day (8 h/day): (8/2) = 4 626 618  Mean truck capacity: 30 m3 627 619 628 620 Given that the average daily compensation (plus all associated costs) for a truck driver is UN 629 621 approximately s220. however.rser.11.5 h  Biomass truck-loading period: 0. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF 581 582 583 This type of fuel is mainly collected at the primary processing plants. 598 597 598 599 599 Fuel Types B2 and F1—grape pomace and greenhouse residues 600 601 TE 602 These types of biomass fuels are currently considered unwanted residues and.006 .. in s/dry kg) for the different fuel 622 Q3 types is calculated by Eq. its expected acquisition cost will be quite low. namely the secondary olive-husk processors. + Models RSER 499 1–29 20 I. the fuel acquisition cost for olive pit is estimated at s14.2.2.87 tonne1. the olive mills. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. the Specific Transportation Cost (STC. hence.e.10.5 h CO 615 622 621 616 624 623  Total schedule duration: (1.2007.67 tonne1. (2): 623 624 total daily compensation ðsÞ ðnumber of schedules=dayÞ  ðtruck capacityÞ  ðspecific gravity of the fuel ðS:G:ÞÞ ð100  moisture content % ðM:C:Þ=100Þ 220 100 631 630 or ¼ 1:833  ðs=dry kgÞ 4  30  S:G:  ð100  M:C:%=100Þ S:G:  ð100  M:C:%Þ 632 (2) Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. has already an established 593 market and competitive uses. EC 605 606 4.. Their transportation cost can be approximated on the basis of the following 608 610 609 assumptions: RR 610 612 611 611 614 613  Mean distance from the fuel production site to the power plant: 30 km 612 616 615  Truck schedule (itinerary): (2  30) = 60 km 613 618 617  Truck mean speed: 40 km/h 614 620 619  Schedule duration: (60/40) = 1. This cost is estimated [8] at 586 s5. 584 The disposal of this type of residue currently constitutes a major problem for the mills and. RO 587 588 588 589 589 Fuel type A6—olive pit 590 591 592 Olive pit is an excellent fuel with high heating value and. 585 hence.1016/j. Boukis et al. that it is possible to arrange long-term DP 594 contracts for relatively high quantities (>5.000 tonnes/year) with the owners of this particular 595 fuel. thus. It is estimated. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). In this case. Item 9-II: transportation cost for the various biomass fuel types 607 The various fuel types considered in this study will be transported with trucks to the biomass power plant. et al.5 + 0. It is estimated [8] that the maximum 604 acquisition cost for both of these type of fuels will be s2.93 tonne1. and based on already established 596 market prices. doi:10. i.

Item 10: reciprocity fees to the Local Authorities 650 According to the Greek Joint Ministerial Decision D6/F1/11444 (FEK 826/28.2007.C. on the cheaper feedstocks (with reference to the TFC 638 and not to the fuel acquisition cost alone).rser. TE 634 The specific gravity and the moisture content for each of the biomass fuel types considered 635 Q4 here are given in Table 12 (Table 13).2. the total annual fuel cost for the proposed biomass combustion plant is 641 s1. RR 644 the mean moisture content of the RFI(w) is calculated to 37.3. in the form of a special 652 annual fee (reciprocity charge).00 350 (from secondary processing) B1 Vineyard prunings 37. producing annually 53. Boukis et al. is the moisture 633 content for each biomass fuel type (% w/w). Cost of Electricity. 653 This charge is collected by the Electricity System Operator (in the case of islands. or RFIC. 642 Combining the above data on the percentage of each fuel type in the actual fuel mix. et al. 636 Finally. 662 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. also. the mean cost for the fuel mix 648 will be s1.289. 645 Consequently.20 GJ1. to be 643 provided to the power plant (RFI(w)) and. is calculated as shown in Table 14.C. 640 Concluding.2001).10. amortisation and fuel cost) for the proposed 8 MWe biomass combustion power 661 plant can now be summarised in Table 15. with reference to dry 639 EC feedstock.00 325 DP B2 Grape pomace 65.C.) and specific gravity (S. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). the moisture content of the fuel types considered.087..G.) of the biomass fuel types considered in the present study [25] Fuel type # Biomass fuel type Moisture content..255. as much as possible. taking into account the above figures and the fact that the biomass combustion plant 637 should be operated. the Required Fuel Input (RFI(d). this is PPC) UN 654 and it is given to the Local Authorities.255. (% w/w) S.52 (dry tonne)1 and that of the 647 RFI(w) s14. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 21 OF Table 12 Moisture content (M. the RFI(w) will be 646 11.180 kWh.854 year1.12.07779 kWh1)  (53.17 (wet tonne)1 respectively. 659 4. the RFI(d) mean energy LHV is 18.00 450 F1 Greenhouse residues 50. 631 630 632 where S. Based on the above figures. (kg/m3) RO A3 Olive tree prunings 35.00 300 A4 Leaves and twigs 30. equaling 2% of the station’s electricity sales to the public grid.74 MJ/dry kg or.G. is the specific gravity for each biomass fuel type (kg/m3) and M.00 300 a After chipping. CO 649 4. see Section 3.2.G. within the area of which the RES station operates. 651 every RES electricity-producing station is subject to an annual charge.2. 656 For the proposed 8 MWe biomass plant.79 MJ/wet kg. On an energy basis. doi:10.08% (w/w).006 .06. the above 657 annual reciprocity fees amount to about (2%)  (s0. Specific gravitya.2.00 280 (from the olive mills) A6 Olive pit 18.4 above) Cost. The RFI(d) mean cost is estimated to be s22.180 kWh) 658 = s82. for the 655 purpose of realising local development projects. M. where the relative weight of each operating-cost item in the Total Operating Cost is also shown. the operating costs (including 660 contingency. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.1016/j.

97 9. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.41 2.006 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.556 279.54 9.10.67 8..93 RR 8.00 2.23 0.944 B2 F1 Grape pomace Greenhouse residues 2.00 20.96 2. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation I.80 13.155 651.2007. 709 708 708 707 706 705 704 703 702 701 700 699 698 697 696 695 694 693 692 691 690 689 688 687 686 685 684 683 682 681 680 679 678 677 676 675 674 673 672 671 670 669 668 667 666 665 664 663 662 22 RSER 499 1–29 + Models doi:10.00 0.93 25.38 5.93 2.1016/j.135 EC Total Cost of Technically Available Fuel Quantities (TAFQ) 1.87 14.38 17.719.10 95.rser. in reference to the Technically Available Fuel Quantities (TAFQ) for the Heraklion Prefecture UN Fuel Biomass fuel type Fuel cost as is.03 18.67 24.902 A4 A6 B1 Leaves and twigs Olive pit Vineyard prunings CO 5. Boukis et al.65 12.87 183.93 20.93 0.36 6.39 8. Fuel cost where is Fuel transport Fuel processing Total Fuel Cost Total Fuel Cost type # where is (s/tonne) (s/dry tonne) cost (s/dry tonne) cost (s/dry tonne) (TFC) (s/dry tonne) (TFC) (s/year) A3 Olive tree prunings 8. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx Table 13 Estimation of the Total Fuel Cost (TFC) for the various biomass fuel types.794 131.. et al.87 11.89 377.486 TE DP RO OF .29 25.80 8. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).89 13.

Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.200 8.77 6.00 131.21 1.916 2.006 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete.709 1.777 0.08 12.200 5.77 20.02 EC 122. et al.664 100.289 TE DP RO OF 23 .535 3.135 1.657 28.77 100.288 14.20 0.390 74.719 183.41 108.71 3.024 904.15 0. RFIC (s/year) 2. per fuel type.400 15. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation I. Boukis et al.2007. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx Table 14 Calculation of the Required Fuel Input (RFI).246 48.56 485.69 34.794 1.860 CO 6.079 29.00 7.10.088 2.000 24. RFI(d) (dry tonnes/year) Required Fuel Input.00 66.08 8.00 71.462 12..81 95.155 RR 4.81 4.782 13. 756 755 755 754 753 752 751 750 749 748 747 746 745 744 743 742 741 740 739 738 737 736 735 734 733 732 731 730 729 728 727 726 725 724 723 722 721 720 719 718 717 716 715 714 713 712 711 710 709 RSER 499 1–29 + Models doi:10. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).64 1.744 100.52 0.57 57.946 159.50 82. in the Heraklion biomass power plant and calculation of the Required Fuel Input Cost (RFIC) Maximum installed power for TAFQ (MWe) UN Required Fuel Input.00 91.55 402.1016/j.492 76.087. RFI(w) (wet tonnes/year) Percentage of TAFQ in plant fuel mix RFI energy content (GJ/year) RFI thermal power (MWth) Installed power per fuel type (MWe) Required Fuel Input Cost.80 1.910 4.rser..41 4.48 3.

67 3 Consumables 161. Sensitivity analysis 776 777 The sensitivity of the project under consideration is examined with regard to two specific 778 parameters..1.632 1. UN 775 The project’s pay-back period on own capital is further shown graphically in Fig. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF Table 15 Summary of operating costs for the proposed biomass combustion plant Item # Operating Cost Item (s/year) (%) 1 Personnel Costs 541.006 .087. the financial evaluation of the proposed project (i. quite sensitive to feedstock costs..2007.064 3. in terms of weight in the Total 782 784 783 Operating Cost.99 DP 8 Amortisation 501. doi:10. 772 Based on the above figures.41 4 General Costs 54.e. 770 The figures related to project investment (with regard to Total Plant Costs). 784 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. the Cost of Electricity for the biomass-fuelled power plant under 759 consideration can now be derived.10. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. Boukis et al.387 8.800 18.2.82 5 Fly ash disposal 45.289 36. 5. 5.78 Total Operating Cost (TOC) 2. Derivation of the project’s financial figures 765 766 Once the main parameters of the biomass-fuelled combustion plant under consideration 767 (8 MWe.46 10 Reciprocity fees (to Local Authorities) 82.33 7 Contingency 119. the feasibility of the CO 769 project can be further examined. + Models RSER 499 1–29 24 I. i. This means that relatively slight changes in feedstock cost have large impacts on 763 the COE and the biomass system under consideration is.981. 760 As seen from the above table.854 2. et al. 783 785  the Specific Investment Cost. with the fuel cost comprising approximately 37% of the Total 762 EC Operating Cost. the most important cost item.180 1.83 9 Fuel cost 1.776 100.934 16.443 5. in the Heraklion Prefecture).53 6 Utilities 129.e. These two parameters are: 779 781 780 782 781  the cost of biomass feedstock.17 RO 2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost 258.00 756 TE 757 Based on the data of Table 7 (the plant’s main operating parameters) and on the above 758 calculation of TOC. the Total Plant Costs and the Total Operating Costs have 768 been established and correlated with the plant’s main operating parameters. the 773 implementation and operation of an 8 MWe biomass-fuelled combustion power plant in 774 Heraklion Prefecture) is given in Table 18.1016/j. Viability of the project 764 RR 5. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). project financing 771 (including loan assumptions) and power plant operation are summarised in Table 17. as shown in Table 16.193 4. 8. thus. a factor which basically determines the Total Plant Cost. which are expected to have a major impact on the project’s viability. the COE is quite high (approximately 72% of the actual purchase 761 price of electricity by PPC).rser.

.919.00 Pay-back period (years) 10 CO Grace period (years) 2 Power plant operation (s/year) Yearly income (sales of electricity) 4.0 WACC (%) 10.1016/j. Boukis et al.799 OPC subsidy (see Section 3.0 IRR own capital. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I.142.03557 All operating costs included 0. project financing and power plant operation parameters and costs % s TE Investment (TPC) Civil works 10.00 1. depreciation and taxes) 1.751.02615 (item #9) and amortisation (item #8) All costs included. 10 years (%) 20.291.933 Electromechanical equipment 60.00 7. doi:10. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 25 OF Table 16 Cost of Electricity (COE) under various conditions for the proposed biomass power plant (in s/kWhe delivered) Condition with regard to operating cost items included in COE s/kWhe Only fuel cost (item #9) included 0.330 EC % s Project financing Own capital 30.080.006 .10.875.3) 40.00 3.00 12. 10 years (s) 722.00 5. 20 years (s) 2.799 Total 100. except Fuel cost (item #9) 0.4 Own capital pay-back period (years) 6.00 3.05599 Purchase price of electricity (by PPC.875.00 Interest (%) 5. et al. except Fuel Cost 0.919.00 3. 20 years (%) 24.799 RR Total 100.732 Long-term loan 30.7 NPV (own capital). Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).614 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I.07779 DP Table 17 Q11 Summary of project investment.0 IRR own capital. see Table 7) 0.662.909 NPV (own capital).598 Other expenses 30.479.rser.167.720 Yearly expenses (=TOC  amortisation) 2.2007..00 12.875.02042 RO All operating costs included.330 Loan assumptions Taxation coefficient (%) 35.859 EBIDTA (earnings before interest.2.863 UN 785 Table 18 Financial evaluation of the proposed project Discount rate (%) 15.

the importance of fuel cost on the Cost of Electricity is clearly seen in Fig. The RFI(d) mean cost (Required Fuel Input. 794 Finally. UN Fig. the need for introducing cheaper feedstocks in the plant’s fuel 800 mix (such as the Exhausted Wet Olive Husk. 9 as a function of fuel cost. worsen 799 project viability. et al. see above) becomes an essential factor of project CO 801 viability.6. is depicted as a function of fuel cost. where 795 the Total Operating Cost. the importance of fuel cost on project viability is 788 clearly shown. biomass feedstocks (such as the Exhausted Wet 792 Olive Husk). as already discussed in Section 3. Project’s pay-back period on own capital.006 .rser. and the Total Operating Cost) and.2. clearly shows that viable projects. + Models RSER 499 1–29 26 I. Sensitivity analysis—Project IRR vs. hence. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).. doi:10.1016/j. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. the COE. 787 Assuming an acceptable project IRR of 15%. 785 TE 786 The project IRR is given in Fig. On the other hand. calculated at approximately s22.5 (dry tonne)1. with respect to the dry biomass 789 input). feedstock fuel cost for different SICs. and.2007. 8. Boukis et al. The impact RR 796 of fuel cost on COE is profound. may arise for Specific Investment Costs lower than approximately s1650 kWe1. referred to in Table 7. which may 793 incorporate an integrated (to the power plant) feedstock-drying stage. 9. higher efficiency technologies may be applied (resulting in higher SIC).. 791 EC In case of cheaper.10. Higher cost feedstocks 797 severely diminish the project’s profit margin (defined as the difference between the electricity 798 purchase price (by PPC). / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF RO DP Fig. for three different values of SIC. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. in 790 terms of IRR. but more difficult to handle. hence. 10.

rser. might have disastrous CO 814 effects on project viability. or at least equal. 807 Another important factor. Throughout this study it is assumed that. 824 823 between s1600 and 1700 kWe1 (in the plant size range considered here). to any increase in the electricity purchase price (by PPC). Sensitivity analysis—Cost of Electricity (COE) as a function of fuel cost. with the fuel cost comprising approximately 37% of TOC (based on the 829 827 fuel mix considered for Heraklion Prefecture). the power plant under RR 809 consideration will have no difficulties delivering all its generated electricity to the grid.006 832 . 801 802 The large impact that fuel costs have on COE and.e. through long-term fuel contracts. Conclusions 817 UN 818 In this paper. 6. and with reasonable Specific Investment Costs (referred to Total Plant Cost figures). to secure 815 the maximum possible penetration of the electricity to be delivered to the grid and to minimise 816 related risks. Hence. derived from prolonged low energy demand periods on the island of Crete. every possible effort should be undertaken to acquire lower cost feedstocks (for example. Besides investigating the use 804 EC of lower cost biomass feedstocks.10. with net electrical efficiencies of approximately 823 822 23%. careful negotiations have to be conducted with PPC.. to comply with the technical constraints of its own fossil-fuel-based power 812 stations. quite efficient power plants. 827 825  The Total Operating Cost for the power plant under consideration is as high as ¢s5. have been realised 824 826 825 and are in smooth operation worldwide.6 kWhe1 828 826 delivered to the grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007). The main conclusions of this investigation are summarised below: 821 820 819 822 821  Many reliable. being a base-loader. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation 831 of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. Due to the high sensitivity of the COE to the fuel 830 828 cost.1016/j. the penetration of the biomass power plant will be lower than expected (i. 10. PPC will activate cut-offs to all Independent Power 811 Producers (IPPs). 810 it is possible that in periods of low demand. which requires further investigation. et al. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. 830 829 831 830 Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. However. indexed in such a way that the potential increase in 806 fuel costs is less. hence. Boukis et al. the viability of a 8 MWe biomass combustion plant was investigated. In this case. which. doi:10. is the annual operating time of 808 the plant..2007. on the viability of the project into 803 consideration. imposes considerable risks on project implementation. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 27 OF RO DP TE Fig. 813 lower than 100%). given the narrow range of plant profitability. serious efforts must be undertaken to secure the majority of the 805 RFI stream.

-NETWORK Ltd. 878 [19] Badger PC.45:935–46.dei. Increased power to heat ratio of small scale CHP plants using biomass fuels and natural gas. Biomass Bioenergy 2006. Improvement of treatments and validation of the liquid–solid waste from the two-phase olive oil 850 extraction. 852 [7] VIOTOPOS. Public Works and Urban Planning. et al. Energy 2004. 875 [17] Bridgwater AV.1016/j.-IMPAX S. Disposal of by-products in olive oil industry: waste-to-energy solution. doi: 10..04. Environmental impact assessment for a cogeneration plant fuelled by 857 agricultural residues in Crete. Milne TA. Athens. Jr.gr. Proposal submitted to the Regulating Authority for Energy 864 (RAE). National Technical University of Athens. 865 [12] Domalski ES. Keith DW. Pelagagge PM. A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast 881 pyrolysis with gasification and combustion. DP 841 [2] Public Power Plant Corporation Greece. Contract No. 844 [4] Avraamides M. Karl J.1030/A/98-407. 882 [21] Biezma M. 858 Athens. 842 [3] Caputo AC. Fast pyrolysis of biomass: a handbook. Appl 843 Therm Eng 2003.. Fatta D. In: European project Altener presentation. 861 2000. 837 References 838 839 [1] Zografakis N. provided that a 40% capital subsidy can be 835 obtained. Submitted to the Ministry of Environment. doi:10. Solantausta Y. Scacchia F. in Greek. An assessment for the theoretical biomass potential in Crete. + Models RSER 499 1–29 28 I. Renew 877 Sustain Energy Rev 2007. Resource consumption and emissions from olive oil production: a life cycle inventory case 845 study in Cyprus. 851 2000.A. Fogelholm CJ. Opt Lasers Eng 2007. 883 Appl Therm Eng 2006. Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. In this case. 834  The project into consideration can be viable.10. Newbury. vol. 2000. 2005. 884 [22] Solantausta Y. XVII/4. 856 [9] IMPAX S. 854 EC [8] IMPAX S. J Cleaner Prod 2007.002. TE 848 Athens. Brammer JG. 868 Energy Conv Manage 2007. in Greek. Thermodynamic data for biomass and waste incineration. Targeted actions facilitating the implementation of a biomass-to-power project in RR 860 the Greek Island of Crete. Ph. Analysis of the product gas from biomass gasification by means of laser spectroscopy. while the RO 836 project’s 10-year IRR is 20%. UK: CPL Press.1016/j. the project’s pay-back period on own capital is 6.7 years. NETWORK Ltd. Athens. 2002. Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage. Thesis. Proposal submitted to 855 the Ministry of Development. 853 Department of Chemical Engineering. FAIR CT96 1420.rser. Study for the energy valorisation of the byproducts and residues of the olive oil production 847 sector of the Messinia Prefecture. 867 [13] Savola T. Lombardi L.jclepro. Cost and performance analysis of new wood fuelled power plant concepts. A feasibility study for a 863 10 MWe biomass-fuelled combustion plant in Crete. 2001.1–13.29:440–50.D.23:197–214. San Christóbal J. Athens. Power generation using fast pyrolysis liquids from biomass.26:583–8. 1998. Boukis et al. performed on behalf of the Prefectural Development Company of Messinia.6:181–248. 862 [11] NTUA (National Technical University of Athens-Department of Mechanical Engineering). 876 [18] Chiaramonty D. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid-Co-ordinator. Crete: a preferential island for extensive applications of Renewable Energy Sources in Europe and 840 Mediterranean.006 . A cogeneration plant fuelled by agricultural residues in Crete. editor. long-term fuel contracts. Fransham P. 846 [5] Vassilakos NP.A. UN 872 873 [16] Corti A. Use of mobile fast pyrolysis plants to densify biomass and reduce biomass handling costs— 879 a preliminary assessment.30:321–5.A.2007. Toft AJ.-NETWORK Ltd. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).47:3105–18. 871 [15] Karellas S. Investment criteria for the selection of cogeneration plants—a state of the art review. 2001. 869 [14] Rhodes JS. 1986 (SERI/SP- CO 866 271-2839. DE 86014515). 880 [20] Bridgwater AV.2007. 2.11:1056–87. www. 859 [10] ALTENER Study. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx OF 830 831 Exhausted Wet Olive Husk). Biomass 870 Bioenergy 2005. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2002. 1993. Oasmaa A. Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle with reduced CO2 emissions: performance 874 analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA). Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. Jobe TL. UK: Aston 885 University. 1997.29:2109–24. or to secure the majority of the required fuel quantities through 833 832 properly indexed. Athens. Project IMPROLIVE. 849 [6] FAIR Study..

Res Notes 1996.rser.10. Thermodynamic Data for Biomass Conversion and Waste Incineration. Overend RP. Jobe TL. Prodesser E.1016/j. Techno-economic assessments for bioenergy 889 applications 1998–1999: final report VTT Tiedotteita. + Models RSER 499 1–29 I. et al.Valition Technillinen Tutkimuskeskus. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 29 OF 886 885 Q5 [23] Solantausta Y. Milne TA. Electricity production by advanced biomass power systems. Ostman A.2007. Res Notes 2000. DP TE EC RR CO UN Please cite this article in press as: Boukis I. September 1986. Techno-economic analysis of the energy exploitation of biomass residues in Heraklion Prefecture—Crete. Beckman D.Valition Technillinen Tutkimuskeskus.. Boukis et al.1729:100–15. Brisgwater T.. doi:10. 888 [24] Solantausta Y. Beckman D. Solar Energy Research Institute and National Bureau of Standards. VTT 887 Tiedotteita. RO 891 [25] Domalski ES. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (2007).2024: 890 46–58.006 . SERI/SP- 892 892 271-2839.