final report on review of performance of the grid ...biomasspower.gov.in/document/reports/report on...

iStudies on Pollution Mitigation Volume I Air Quality Management

Report on Review of Performance of the Grid-connected Biomass-based Power Plants Installed in India

Final Report onReview of Performance of the Grid- connected Biomass-based Power Plants Installed in India

August 2009

Prepared byDSCL ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY LTD6th Floor, Kanchenjunga 18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001Tel 011 23316801, Fax 011 23319062

Submitted byMinistry of New and Renewable EnergyBlock no. 14, C.G.O. Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110003

ii


UNDP/GEF-Biomass Power Project

CONTENTS1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Competitive Usage of Biomass .....................................................................................................3 1.2 Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................................3 1.3 Cost of Transportation ......................................................................................................................3 1.4 Strategy for Direct Procurement of Fuel ....................................................................................4 1.5 Technical Feasibility for Co-firing .................................................................................................4 1.6 Appropriate Sizing of Power Plants for Sustainability ..........................................................4 1.7 Summary Recommendations ........................................................................................................5 1.8 Recommendations on Best Practices ..........................................................................................5 1.8.1 Policy and regulatory aspects ........................................................................................5 1.8.2 Plant and fuel related ........................................................................................................7 1.8.3 Project financing .................................................................................................................8

2 Detailed Report on Follow on Agenda (Post Meeting of 5 June 2009)......................................9 2.1 Use of Biomass and Economic Analysis of Alternative Usage of Biomass ................... 10 2.1.1 Rajasthan ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Maharashtra ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.3 Chhattisgarh ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Punjab ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.5 Summary conclusions ..................................................................................................... 23 2.2 Cost of Transportation of Biomass ............................................................................................ 24 2.2.1 Conclusions from the study .......................................................................................... 26 2.3 Strategy on Direct Procurement from Farmers/Innovative Fuel Linkages .................. 26 2.3.1 Setting up fuel collection centres ............................................................................... 26 2.3.2 Fuel–power barter system ............................................................................................. 27 2.3.3 Entering into partnership with local panchayats .................................................. 27 2.3.4 Establishing farmers’ biomass co-operatives .......................................................... 28 2.4 Technical Feasibility on Co-firing................................................................................................ 28 2.4.1 Situational analysis ........................................................................................................... 28 2.4.2 Issues involved with co-firing ....................................................................................... 31 2.4.3 Description of combustion technologies capable of co-firing ........................ 32 2.5 Policy on Fuel Linkage .................................................................................................................... 35 2.5.1 Defining the zone or catchment area for a power plant .................................... 35 2.5.2 Controlling the movement of biomass outside the catchment area of power plant ................................................................................... 36 2.6 Appropriate Sizing of Power Plant Considering Long-term Fuel Security and Sustainability .................................................................................................. 36 2.7 Related to Grid Particularly for Evacuation of Power, Grid Stabilization, Losses in T&D .......................................................................................................... 37 2.7.1 Recommendations on the issue .................................................................................. 37

iv



3 Additional Submissions on Original Terms of Reference of the Assignment ....................... 39 3.1 Reporting Structure ........................................................................................................................ 40 3.1.1 Preparation of structured database ........................................................................... 40 3.1.2 Review, analysis, synthesis of data and information and their validation through field visits .................................................................... 40 3.1.3 Development of generic guidelines and technical recommendation reports ............................................................................................... 40 3.1.4 Development of strategy for better utilisation of biomass for grid-connected power generation and suggested amendments/modifications ......................................................................................... 41 3.2 Methodology Followed for the Study....................................................................................... 41 3.2.1 Field visit .............................................................................................................................. 41 3.2.2 Structured database ........................................................................................................ 42 3.2.3 Barrier analysis ................................................................................................................... 44 3.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 55 3.3.1 Policy and regulatory aspects ...................................................................................... 55 3.3.2 Technical (projects/products) deliverables ............................................................. 65 3.3.3 Project financing ............................................................................................................... 66 3.3.4 Sustainable biomass supply linkages ........................................................................ 67

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 Economic analysis of brick kilns in Rajasthan ................................................................. 12

Table 2 Consumption of biomass by Haath Bhatta (%) .............................................................. 13

Table 3 Economic analysis of brick kilns in Maharashtra ............................................................ 15


Table 5 Economic analysis of a cement plant when using biomass....................................... 17

Table 6 Economic analysis of brick kilns in Chhattisgarh ........................................................... 18


Table 8 Economic analysis of a cement plant when using biomass....................................... 20

Table 9 Economic analysis of brick kilns in Punjab ....................................................................... 22

Table 10 Distribution of biomass usage (%) ...................................................................................... 23

Table 11 Cost of transportation of biomass ...................................................................................... 25

Table 12 Cost of transportation of biomass – up to 15 km .......................................................... 25

Table 13 Cost of transportation of biomass: 15–50 km ................................................................. 25

Table 15 Transportation cost of biomass ............................................................................................ 26

Table 14 Cost of transportation of biomass: above 50 km ........................................................... 26

Table 16 Co-firing in various plants ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 17 Expected efficiency level for different types of biomass ............................................ 35

Table 18 Operation and maintenance issues of power plants ................................................... 38

Table 19 Transmission voltage and loss .............................................................................................. 38

Table 20 Details of biomass-based power plants ............................................................................ 45

Table 21 Structured database of power plants ................................................................................ 46

Table 22 Analysis of barriers related to policy and regulatory aspects ................................... 53

Table 23 Identification of ‘Best Practice’ .............................................................................................. 56

Table 24 Recommendations on policy and regulatory aspects ................................................. 64

Table 25 Optimal steam temperature and the best combustion technology for different types of biomass ....................................................................... 66

Table 26 Technologically experienced OEMs .................................................................................... 66

Table 27 Experienced OEMs for fuel handling system ................................................................... 66

vi



LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Methodology for economic analysis of alternate use of biomass .............................. 11

Figure 2 Distribution of biomass usage in Rajasthan (%) ................................................................ 11

Figure 3 Distribution of biomass usage in Maharashtra (%) .......................................................... 14

Figure 4 Distribution of biomass usage in Chhattisgarh (%).......................................................... 17

Figure 5 Distribution of biomass usage in Punjab (%) ..................................................................... 21

Figure 6 Travelling grate combustion technology ............................................................................. 32

Figure 7 AFBC combustion technology ................................................................................................. 33

Figure 8 AFBC with bottom hopper ........................................................................................................ 34

Figure 9 Methodology followed for the study .................................................................................... 42

viii



e x e c u t i v e s u m m a r y

1

2



The Ministry of New andRenewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India, has engaged DSCL Energy Services Co. Ltd (DSCLES) for carrying out a study on ‘Review of Performance of the Grid-Connected Biomass-Based Power Plants

Installed in India’ in the states of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Rajasthan. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the assignment were as listed below.1. Preparation of a structured database on fuel, plant operational performance,

policies, and regulatory aspects, and perceived performance of the state nodal agencies (SNAs)

2. Review, analysis, synthesis of data and information, and their validation through field visits

3. Development of generic guidelines and technical recommendations4. Development of strategy for better utilization of biomass for grid-connected

power generation considering existing and suggested amendments/modifica-tions in policy measures

As part of the study, eight plants were visited for the purpose of data collection and discussions with promoters and stakeholders involved in biomass supply system. Additional visits were made to interact with the SNAs.

Similar and related studies were made by other consultants engaged by MNRE for other states and also related studies in other areas.

All consultants, including DSCLES, had made a presentation on the interim findings and project progress in a meeting held at MNRE on 5 June 2009, which was chaired by the Secretary, MNRE.

During the presentations and subsequent deliberations, several ideas emerged for further analysis of the situations, considering the following key points:

Benefit to the farmers should be the prime consideration and one must see how �best this can be interlinked with biomass power developmentOverall value addition by the available biomass to the economy �Environmental benefit �Sustainability of different activities �

Accordingly, the consultants were advised to carry out a more detailed study on the competitive use of biomass. The ToR, as listed below, for this detailed study was developed. 1. Economic analysis of competitive use of biomass2. Cost of transportation3. Strategy for direct procurement of biomass from farmers4. Technical feasibility of co-firing5. Appropriate sizing of power plant for sustainability

3


Executive Summary

Supplementary field visits were undertaken to collect more exhaustive data on competitive usage and evaluate the technology of the plants for co-firing. Observa-tions and recommendations in brief are outlined in the following sections. (Details are provided in Section 2 of this report.)

1.1 Competitive Usage of Biomass Fodder accounts for over 50% (44%–64%) of the usage and this would have to �remain so from farmers’ perspectives.About 5%–10% is used as domestic fuel. By encouraging use of energy-efficient �stoves, some savings can be generated.5%–18% is used in biomass power plants, including those in the neighbouring �areas.3%–25% is used in other industries such as oil mills, paper mills, captive in rice �mills, cement plants, and conventional power plants.Brick kilns use only 2%–3%. This is a major finding as brick kilns were earlier �thought of as consuming large quantities of biomass. Except � for Chhattisgarh, the diversion to export from the zones ranges from 3% to 17%. Some action at the policy level can prevent this from happening.Wastage due to loss in collection/field burning is high in Punjab (at 12.5%), �whereas in Maharashtra it is nil.

1.2 Economic Analysis Both brick kilns and cement mills can offer higher price by as much as 25% con- �sidering coal price parity.However, consumption by these industries is not significant and as such does �not appear to be posing a threat to biomass-based power plants.Oil mills can offer much higher price. In fact, here they have the opportunity of �realising higher value by installing mini cogeneration power plants and export-ing a small quantity of power to the grid. This would provide the highest value realisation from biomass. Price parity should be governed by coal price parity. �Tariff for biomass power should, therefore, be directly linked to coal price. �

1.3 Cost of Transportation Transportation cost Value (Rs/T) Fuel cost at depot (Rs/T) Contribution (%)

Up to 15 km 150 1700 8

Up to 35 km 250 1700 13

Up to 50 km 383 1700 18

Above 50 km 428 1700 20

4



From the above table, it is clear that the economics of power plant operation is sig-nificantly affected by the transportation cost. From a practical perspective, this cost should be managed within 10% of the overall fuel cost. This means the collection zone should not exceed 15 km. Even if the command area is more, managing this cost is possible by setting up collection centres at the fringes.

1.4 Strategy for Direct Procurement of Fuel As already presented in the meeting of 5 June 2009, the strategy adopted by Malwa Power is focused on direct procurement and, therefore, can be replicated.Other ideas that can be pursued are listed below.

Opening of collection centres � (This is already being practised by Malwa Power.)Fuel power barter system � (It may be possible to cover villages close to the project sites by guaranteeing 24-hour power supply linked to fuel supply for the power plant.)Partnership with local panchayats � (By offering equity stakes to panchayats in the power plant.)Developing farmer fuel co-operative � (Co-operatives of farmers already exist in most of the states. These cooperatives can be encouraged to take up fuel supply as business and they should be provided investment support for mecha-nised fuel collection systems and logistics.)

These ideas have to be developed further and tested as pilots in some projects.

1.5 Technical Feasibility for Co-firing Most of the boilers are based on either travelling grate or atmospheric fluidised bed combustion (AFBC) technologies. Both these technologies can support co-firing up to 20%. However, for co-firing on continuous basis, additional investment has to be made on fuel handling and feeding system.

1.6 Appropriate Sizing of Power Plants for Sustainability

Analysis of operation of the eight power plants makes the following interesting revelations:

Plants that use fuel up to 10% of the overall available biomass are operating at �over 80% plant load factor (PLF).Plants in Chhattisgarh that use over 15% available biomass are facing �problems.From delivered cost perspective, if the collection distance is maintained at less �than 15 km, the overall financial performance would be good.

5


It is, therefore, recommended that plant sizes are made location-specific based on maxi-mum biomass drawal up to 10%. This may lead to sizes ranging from 5 to 8 MW in states like Haryana and Rajasthan and 8 to 12 MW in Punjab. However, all such projects must include fuel management strategy considering all the points mentioned above in the detailed project report.

1.7 Summary Recommendations About 65%–75% of the available biomass would continue to be used by farm- �ers for fodder and fuel. Consumption as fuel can be reduced by promoting energy-efficient stoves. This can significantly improve the surplus availability of biomass.Considerable amount of fuel gets lost due to poor harvesting and collection �process. Thus, more efforts need to be made in improving technology in this area. Financial incentives may be considered for investment in mechanisation and R&D in this area.Tariff for biomass-based projects has to be linked to coal; in fact, it has to be �higher than coal due to the need for higher level of investment in logistics and also inherent limitations on achievable efficiency level.Projects should be based on maximum drawl of 10% of available biomass in �an area of diameter 30 km and reservation provided for 30 km spatial distance between two adjacent plants. In areas with leaner agricultural density, size may range from 5 to 7 MW whereas in resource-rich states, this may go up to 12 MW.Smaller industries such as oil mills and mini paper mills should be encouraged �to install grid-connected cogeneration power plants to improve economic val-ue addition from biomass.All future biomass assessment study should follow this methodology for com- �petitive analysis before making recommendation on project capacity.

1.8 Recommendations on Best Practices Summary recommendations on best practices as per TOR of the assignment is given in the following tables.

1.8.1 Policy and regulatory aspects

Issue Best practice/recommendations Followed in the state of

Project initiation: SNA and /or Developer

Project initiation by SNA Maharashtra

Single window clear-ance and empowered committee for project appraisal

No single window clearance and committee for project appraisal

Mahar-ashtra and Chhattisgarh

Executive Summary

6




Deemed clearance in case of delay from SNA/Other approving organization

No deemed clearance Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan

Final criteria for selec-tion of party

Selection based on first-come first-served basis

Maharashtra

Who bears the cost of power evacuation system

50% refund through the SNA (100% refund of cost of power evacuation is proposed to be refunded in the latest revision of policy)

Maharashtra

Ensure faster project development after allotment

Refundable commitment fee of Rs 500,000 per MW, six months is provided for getting clearance extendable for genuine reasons and a final deadline of two years from allotment, failing which the project gets cancelled

Maharashtra

Consumption of fossil fuel

As this is a state-specific issue and the actual plants are close to and within the specified limits, all the four states are having the best practice

All four states

Monitoring fossil fuel consumption and renewable purchase obligation (RPO) compliance

The format followed by the Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (MEDA) covers the quantities and cost (including break-up) to help monitor fossil fuel consumption, cost at a plant level, and RPO compliance at a state level.

Maharashtra

Annual escalation of variable part tariff

No best practice found. Recommended third-party survey to estimate the market price of biomass, track annual growth in price, and GCV of biomass – MNRE/SNA

-

Biomass fuel price considered for tariff determination

No best practice found. Recommended third-party survey to estimate the market price of biomass, track annual growth in price, and GCV of biomass – MNRE/SNA

-

GCV of biomass considered for tariff determination

No best practice found. Recommended third party survey to estimate the market price of biomass, track annual growth in price & GCV of biomass – MNRE/SNA

-

RPO RPO declared for more than 5 years along with minimum (for consumption purpose) and maximum (for contracting purpose)

Maharashtra

Allowance of open access

If the developer wants open access and financial assistance for power evacuation, he is allowed to sell power through open access, but within the state. If the developer wants open access without financial assistance for power evacuation, he is allowed to sell power through open access even beyond the state boundary. All decisions to be taken before PPA is signed and in the beginning

Maharashtra

7



Catchment area Catchment area is clearly defined as 40 km Rajasthan

1.8.2 Plant and fuel related

Issue Findings/RecommendationsSelection of process parameters for different fuels / fuel mix

Selection of process parameters for different fuels / fuel mix

Sourcing of plant With a view to improve technical performance of the higher effiency projects and plants, as far as possible established vendors should be used. New vendors can be encouraged only after technology has been stabilised. Some of the recommended vendors for different sections of the plants are listed below.

Fuel collection and densification including baling •-Import technology/machinery from Germany, Netherlands, and JapanFuel handling - Kwality Engineers, Bevcon Wayors, •Concept Engineers, Masyc Projects, and Enviro AbrasionBoilers - Thermax, IJT, and Cether Vessel•Turbo Generator (TG) Sets - Shin Nippon, Bharat •Heavy Electricals Ltd, and Siemens for all capacities and Triveni for capacities less than 10 MW Electrostatic precipitator - Alstom/Thermax•

Executive Summary

S. No. Biomass Optimal Steam Temperature (Deg C)

Best Combustion Technology

1 Mustard Residue

460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

2 Paddy Straw 450 - 460 Travelling Grate

3 Rice husk 495 - 500 AFBC

4 Cotton Residue 460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

5 Soyabean Residue


6 Ground Nut Residue


7 Bagasse 500 - 540 Travelling Grate

8 Wood Chips 500 - 540 AFBC

8



1.8.3 Project financing

Issue Findings/RecommendationsProject financing guidebook

For reducing transaction-related problems faced by developers in dealing with financial institutions (FIs), it is recommended that MNRE may prepare a guideline docu-ments on the following:

Investment norm – hard and soft costs•Different types of financing options available from dif-•ferent sourcesAvailable financial and fiscal supports including •subsidiesEquity financing opportunities•Carbon financing•Processes and procedures adopted by different FIs•

Steering committee MNRE may also set up a financial facilitating commit-tee with members from RE financing FIs like IREDA, REC, PFC to periodically review progress of projects pending financing approval and assist in reducing time required for financial approval.

detailed report on follow-on agenda (post meeting of 5 june 2009)

2

user

Highlight

Remove

10



The following action agenda was identified during the presentation at MNRE on 5 June 2009.

Competitive use of biomass and economic analysis of alternative usage of �biomassCost of transportation of biomass �Strategy on direct procurement from farmers/Innovative fuel logistics �Technical feasibility of co-firing �Uniform policy on fuel linkage �Appropriate sizing of power plant considering long-term fuel security and �sustainabilityStudy in issues related to grid particularly for evacuation of power, grid stabili- �zation, losses in transmission and distribution (T&D)

2.1 Competitive Use of Biomass and Economic Analysis of Alternative Usage of Biomass

To perform economic analysis of alternative usage of biomass, Chhattisgarh, Mahar-ashtra, Punjab, and Rajasthan were visited and information on various parameters such as crop area, crop production, internal consumption of biomass by farmers and villagers, industrial biomass consumption, export/import of biomass in the catchment area and biomass price was collected. In addition, other process indus-tries such as brick kilns and cement plants were visited to collect information on cost of production, biomass cost, profitability, etc. The collected data was analysed and percentage distribution of biomass usage in each state was established. The profitability of brick kiln was compared with profitability of biomass-based power plant. In the case of cement plants, profitability difference was evaluated when us-ing biomass in place of coal and maximum biomass price, which plants can afford to pay in parity with coal price. Figure 1 shows the methodology followed by the DSCLES team for economic analysis.

The state-wise analysis of competitive usage of biomass is given below.

2.1.1 Rajasthan

Figure 2 shows the percentage distribution of biomass usage in Rajasthan. The sali-ent features of the study are given below.

About 60% is used as animal fodder. �About 11% is consumed as domestic fuel. �Biomass power plants (Suryachambal Power Plant Ltd, Kota and Amrit Environ- �mental Technologies Private Limited [AETPL], Kotputli) consume only 4.6%.Oil mills and brick kilns consume 6.9% and 3.4%, respectively. �About 2% is exported outside the catchment area and 4.6% is left in the fields to �decompose or burnt in the fields.

11


Detailed Report on Follow-on Agenda

Figure 1 Methodology for economic analysis of alternate use of biomass

Figure 2 Distribution of biomass usage in Rajasthan (%)Source DSCLES Field Visit

Visit Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Rajasthan and conduct

biomass assessment.

Collect data on crop area, crop production, internal consumption of biomass by farmers and villagers, industrial

biomass consumption, export/import of biomass in the catchment area, biomass price, etc.

Analysis of data for process industries such as brick kiln and cement plant; Compare

profitability with power plant, maximum price that units can pay for biomass,

percentage of total biomass consumption by brick kilns

Analysis of data for percentage distribution

of biomass usage in each state for various categories such as fodder, domestic fuel, mulching, thatching, consumption in process plants such as oil mills, cement, paper, biomass-based power plants, net

import/export of biomass from catchment area.

Table 1 shows the economic analysis of the brick kilns in Rajasthan. The analysis has been performed for Haath Bhattas and Chimney Bhattas. Haath Bhattas can use only biomass or biomass with coal while Chimney Bhattas can use only coal or coal with biomass. The profitability of Chimney Bhatta is about 25% higher than Haath Bhat-ta. The quality of brick is also superior in Chimney Bhatta as compared with Haath Bhatta. The profit in Chimney Bhatta is Rs. 6.4/kg while the profit in power plants in

12



Rajasthan is Rs 0.2–0.25 /kg.1 This indicates that profitability of Chimney Bhattas is much higher than that of biomass-based power plant and consequently, Bhattas can afford to pay higher price for biomass than biomass-based power plant.

Table 1 Economic analysis of brick kilns in RajasthanHaath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Name of the unit B K Brick Company, Devli, Dist Tonk, Rajasthan

Monthly production of bricks (no.)

120,000–200,000 500,000–800,000

No. of brick kilns in Devli Tehsil (no.)

8 9

Various inputs in brick

Mass balance for brick manufacture

Earth (kg) 3 3

River sand (kg) 1 1

Total (kg) 4 4

No. of bricks per acre (1 acre × 1 ft)

220,000 220,000

How long they operate in the land

As long as good earth is available


After the closure of kiln what happens to the land

Left fallow for 1–2 years; after that the land can be used for agriculture

Left fallow for 1–2 years; after that the land can be used for agriculture

Various types of fuel used by brick kilns

1 Coal and mustard husk can be used

Coal with mustard husk can be used

2 Mustard husk and wood can be used

Coal alone can be used

3 Coal, mustard husk, and wood can be used

Fuel quantity used for making 1000 bricks

Mustard husk (kg) 75 50

Coal (kg) 70 100

Wood (kg) 80 –

Equivalent mustard husk (kg) 242 159

Mustard husk (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.63 0.63

Coal (Rs/1000 kcal) 1.14 1.14

Wood (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.44 –

Transportation cost Included in above cost Included in above cost

Source Traders Traders

Cost of raw material (sand, clay, lime, etc.) (Rs/1000 bricks)

380 380

Cost of labour (Rs/1000 bricks) 300 300

1 Source: Field visit & Financial Model-DSCLES

13


Table 1 Contd...Haath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Cost of fuel used (Rs/1000 bricks)

558 500

Total manufacturing cost (Rs/1000 bricks)

1238 1180

Energy cost as percentage of total manufacturing cost (%)

45.07 42.37

Selling rate by brick kiln (Rs/1000 bricks)

2000 2200

Market rate (Rs/1000 bricks) 2800 3000

Profit (Rs/1000 bricks) 762 1020

Profit in mustard residue (Rs/kg) 3.2 6.4

Profitability difference (%) 25.29

Area/dump coal/biomass coming from (Source)

Coal coming from Bihar and Chhattisgarh, Mustard husk and wood through local traders

Other used of ash Ash either flies away or used for land filling

Problems faced Labour comes in groups so sometimes problem is faced

General Information

Bhatta location Can be erected where leased land is taken

Site is fixed

Period of operation per year Six months per year depending on labour

Quality of bricks Quality of bricks is better in Chimney Bhatta

Initial investment (Rs) Rs 1.6–2.0 lakh Rs 24–26 lakh

Source DSCLES Field Visit

In Chimney Bhatta, if only coal had been used, the profitability would have been reduced by about 8%. In comparison with coal prices, brick kilns can afford to pay about 83% higher price than existing biomass prices.

Table 2 shows that Haath Bhattas consume 2.18% of the total biomass generated in Devli tehsil, Rajasthan. As overall consumption of biomass by brick kiln is low, brick kilns do not pose any major concern for the power plant.

Table 2 Consumption of biomass by Haath Bhatta (%)Particulars Details

Consumption per 1000 bricks by Haath Bhatta (kg) 75

Monthly production of bricks (no.) 120,000

Total biomass consumption per year per Bhatta (MT) 108

No. of Bhattas in Devli Tehsil 8

Total biomass consumption per year by all Bhattas (MT) 864

Biomass generation in Devli Tehsil (MT) 39,645

Consumption of total biomass by Haath Bhatta (%) 2.18


14



2.1.2 Maharashtra

Figure 3 shows the percentage distribution of biomass usage in Maharashtra. The salient features of the study are given below.

About 44% of the total biomass generated is used as animal fodder. �About 9% is consumed as domestic fuel. �Biomass power plants (Rake Power Ltd, Nagpur and Shalivahana Projects Ltd., �Yavatmal) consume only 8.6%.Oil mills and brick kilns consume about 20% and 1.79%, respectively. �About 10% is exported outside the catchment area. �

Figure 3 Distribution of biomass usage in Maharashtra (%)Source DSCLES Field Visit

Table 3 shows the economic analysis of the brick kilns in Maharashtra. The analysis has been performed for Haath Bhattas and Chimney Bhattas. Haath Bhattas can use coal and/or biomass while Chimney Bhattas use only coal. Profitability of Chimney Bhatta is about 26% higher than Haath Bhatta. The quality of brick is also superior in Chimney Bhatta as compared with Haath Bhatta. The profit in Haath Bhatta is Rs 3.1/kg while the profit in power plant in Maharashtra is Rs 0.15–0.20 /kg.2 This indicates that the profitability of Haath Bhattas is much higher than that of a biomass-based power plant and consequently, Bhattas can afford to pay higher price for biomass than biomass-based power plants.

In comparison with coal prices, brick kilns can afford to pay about 24% higher price than the existing biomass prices.

Table 4 shows that the Haath Bhattas consume about 4% of total biomass genera-tion in Nagpur. As the overall consumption of biomass by brick kilns is low, brick kilns do not pose any major concern for the power plant.

2 Source: Field Visit and Financial Model of DSCLES

15


Table 3 Economic analysis of brick kilns in Maharashtra Haath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Name of the unit and address Krisk Bricks, Owner: Mr Sri Niwas, Village Mansar, Taluk Ramtek, Nagpur

Shakti Bricks, Owner: Mr Neezami, VillageMansar, Taluk Ramtek, Nagpur

Monthly production 150,000 750,000

No. of units in Nagpur About 130 About 25 (Fixed concrete chimney wala) and 75 (Metal chimney wala)

Cost of various inputs in brick


Sand (Earth) (kg) 2 2

River sand (kg) 1 1

Total (kg) 3 3

No. of bricks per acre (1 acre × 1 ft)

300,000 300,000

How long they operate in the land

As long as good earth is available As long as good earth is available


Paddy crop or fishing Paddy crop or fishing


Rice husk (kg) 85

Coal (kg) 75 150

Wood (kg) 85

Total equivalent rice husk (kg) 265


1 Coal and rice husk can be used or Only coal can be used

2 Rice husk and wood can be used or

3 Rice husk alone can be used or

4 Coal, rice husk, and wood can be used

Cost of fuels, source of purchasers, and biomass transport cost

Rice husk (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.72 –

Coal (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.89 0.89

Wood (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.44 –

Source Coal, rice husk, and wood through traders

Through traders (nearby mines -Kamptee)

Transportation Included Included

Cost of raw material (Rs /1000 bricks)

300 300

Cost of labour (Rs /1000 bricks)

300 300

Table 3 contd...


16



Table 3 Contd... Haath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Cost of fuel used (Rs /1000 bricks)

570 480

Total manufacturing cost (Rs /1000 bricks)

1170 1080

Energy cost as percentage of the total manufacturing cost (%)

48.72 44.44

Selling rate (Rs /1000 bricks) 2000 2200

Market rate (Rs /1000 bricks) 2800 3000

Profit per 1000 bricks (Rs /1000 bricks)

830 1120

Profitability difference (%) 26

Profit per kilogram of rice husk (Rs/kg)

3.13 Only coal can be used

Ash disposal Whatever little bit ash either it flies away or used for landfilling

Problems faced Labour problem related to productivity

Bhatta location Can be erected where leased land is available

Bhatta kiln site is fixed



Consumption of biomass per 1000 bricks by Haath Bhatta (kg) 85

Monthly production of bricks (no.) 150,000


No. of Bhattas in Nagpur District 130

Total biomass consumption per year by all Bhattas (MT) 19,890

Biomass generation in Nagpur District (MT) 506,147

Biomass consumption by Bhattas (%) 4

Table 5 shows the economic analysis of the cement plant using biomass as an al-ternative fuel to coal. It can be seen from Table 8 that profitability of cement plant is higher by around 3.0% in Maharashtra when using biomass in place of coal. As compared with coal prices, cement plant can afford to pay around 20% higher price than existing biomass prices.

2.1.3 Chhattisgarh

Figure 4 shows the percentage distribution of biomass usage in Chhattisgarh. The salient features of the study are given below.

About 64% of the total biomass is consumed as animal fodder. �About 7.7% is consumed for mulching and thatching. �

17


Table 5 Economic analysis of a cement plant when using biomassSpecific details of the cement plant

Detail Grasim Cement, Maharashtra

Data

Process Dry process

Fuel consumption 800 kcal/kg

Fuel used Coal/Biomass

Impact on quality if biomass used No problem

Profitability calculation

Detail Coal Biomass

Fuel consumption /MT of cement (MT/MT) 0.23 0.25

Fuel cost/MT of cement (Rs/MT) 457 375

Calorific value (kcal/kg) 3500 3200

Landed cost (Rs/MT) 2000 1500

Cost of cement manufactured (Rs/MT) 1000 920

Fuel cost as percentage of manufacturing cost (%) 45.71 40.76

Selling price of cement (Rs/MT) 3600 3600

Profit (Rs/MT) 2600 2680


Maximum price of biomass that plants can pay in comparison to coal (Rs/MT)

1830


Figure 4 Distribution of biomass usage in Chhattisgarh (%)Source DSCLES Field Visit

Biomass power plants in the region consume about 18.4%. �About 5% is imported from Ambikapur and the surrounding area at the rate of �Rs 1600–2300 per MT.


18



Table 6 shows the economic analysis of the brick kilns in Chhattisgarh. The analysis has been performed for Haath Bhattas and Chimney Bhattas. Haath Bhattas can use coal and/or biomass while Chimney Bhattas use only coal. Profitability of Chimney Bhatta is about 22% higher than Haath Bhatta. The quality of brick is also superior in Chimney Bhatta as compared with Haath Bhatta. The profit in Haath Bhatta is Rs 3.3/kg of biomass while the profit in power plants is Rs 0.20–0.22/kg.3 This indicates that the profitability of Haath Bhattas is much higher than that of biomass-based power plants and consequently, Bhattas can afford to pay a higher price for biomass than biomass-based power plants.

3 Source: Field Visit & Financial Model-DSCLES

Table 6 Economic analysis of brick kilns in ChhattisgarhHaath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Name of the unit Mr B Bhurva, Village Temar, Tehsil Raipur

Mrs L C Bhavani Village Sarona, Tehsil Raipur

Monthly production 150,000 750,000

Cost of various inputs in brick


Sand (Earth) (kg) 2 2

River sand (kg) 1 1

Total (kg) 3 3

No. of bricks per acre (1 acre × 1 ft) 300,000 300,000

How long they operate in the land As long as good earth is available



Paddy crop or fishing Paddy crop or fishing

Cost of raw material (Rs /1000 bricks) 300 300

Haath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta

Cost of labour (Rs /1000 bricks) 280 280

Cost of fuel used (Rs /1000 bricks) 541 450

Total manufacturing cost (Rs /1000 bricks)

1121 1030

Energy Cost as percentage of of the total manufacturing cost (%)

48.26 43.69

Selling rate by brick kiln (Rs /1000 bricks)

2000 2150

Market rate (Rs /1000 bricks) 2700 3000

Profit for brick kiln (Rs /1000 bricks) 879 1120

Profit per kg rice husk (Rs) 3.3


Table 6 contd...

19


In comparison with coal prices, brick kilns can afford to pay around 30% higher price than existing biomass prices.

Haath Bhattas consume about 12% rice husk generation in Raipur District (Table 7). It can be inferred from Table 7 that as the consumption of rice husk in brick kiln is low, brick kilns are not a major cause of concern for power plants.

Table 6 Contd...Haath Bhatta Chimney Bhatta


1 Coal and rice husk can be used or Coal of C, D, and F grades only

2 Rice husk + wood can be used or

3 Rice husk alone can be used or

4 Coal, rice husk, and wood can be used


Rice husk (kg) 85

Coal (kg) 75 150

Wood (kg) 85

Equivalent rice husk (kg) 263

Cost of fuels, source of purchasers, and biomass transport cost

Rice husk (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.66

Coal (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.86 0.86

Wood (Rs/1000 kcal) 0.44

Transportation cost (Included in above cost)

Source Coal, rice husk, and wood through traders

Through traders (from Korba Mines)

Ash utilization Whatever little bit ash, either it flies away or used for filling

Problems faced Labour problem

Bhatta location Can be erected where leased land is taken

Bhatta kiln site is fixed

Period of operation per year Six months per year depending on labour

No. of brick kilns in Raipur District

About 180 Haath Bhattas About 30 Fixed concrete chimney wala and 70 Metal chimney wala

Brick kiln efficiency As compared with Chimney Bhatta, the efficiency of Haath Bhatta is less

Quality of bricks The quality of bricks is better in Chimney Bhatta

Initial investment (Rs) 1.8–2.0 lakh 24–25 lakh



20




Consumption of biomass per 1000 bricks by Haath Bhatta (kg) 85

Monthly production of bricks 150,000


No. of Bhattas in Raipur District 180

Total biomass consumption per year by all Bhattas (MT) 27,540

Biomass generation in Raipur District (MT) 235,200

Use of biomass by Haath Bhattas (%) 12%

Table 8 shows the economic analysis of a cement plant using biomass as alternative fuel to coal. It can be seen from Table 8 that the profitability of the cement plant is higher by about 3.7% in Chhattisgarh when using biomass in place of coal. As com-pared with coal prices, cement plants can afford to pay about 28% higher price than existing biomass prices.

Table 8 Economic analysis of a cement plant when using biomassSpecific details of the cement plant

Detail Lafarge Cement, Chhattisgarh

Process Dry Process

Fuel consumption 780 kcal/kg

Fuel used Coal/Biomass

Impact on quality if biomass is used No problem

Profitability calculation

Detail Coal Biomass

Fuel consumption /MT of cement (MT/MT) 0.22 0.24

Fuel Cost/ MT of cement (Rs/MT) 541.67 425.45

Calorific value (kcal/kg) 3600 3300

Landed cost (Rs/MT) 2500 1800

Cost of cement manufactured (Rs/MT) 1100 1000

Fuel cost as percentage of manufacturing cost (%) 49.24 42.55

Selling price of cement (Rs/MT) 3800 3800

Profit (Rs/MT) 2700 2800


Maximum price of biomass that plants can pay in comparison to coal (Rs/MT)

2290

Source DSCLES Field Survey

2.1.4 Punjab

Figure 5 shows the percentage distribution of biomass usage in Punjab. The salient features of the study are given below.

21


Figure 5 Distribution of biomass usage in Punjab (%)Source DSCLES Field Visit

About 57% of total biomass generated is consumed as animal fodder in the �state. Biomass power plants in the region consume about 5.6% of the total biomass �consumption.About 17% is exported outside the catchment area. �About 12.5% of total biomass is left on the fields because of low density of fuel �and lack of proper mechanical equipment to collect and transport the biomass resulting in low collection efficiency.

Table 9 shows the economic analysis of the brick kilns in Punjab. In Punjab, only Chimney Bhattas are available. Chimney Bhattas use coal, waste tyres, and old bat-tery shells. No biomass (rice husk) is being utilised by kilns as biomass cost is high (Rs 4000–5000/MT).


22



Table 9 Economic analysis of brick kilns in PunjabType of Bhatta Haath

BhattaChimney Bhatta

Name of the unit and address Are not operated in Punjab

T R Brick Company, P.O. Majeetha, Dist. Amritsar

Monthly production 800,000 bricks

No. of units in Dist. Amritsar About 70

Parameters

Mass balance for brick manufacturer

Sand (Earth) (kg) 3.5

River sand (kg) 0

Total (kg) 3.5

No. of bricks per acre (1 acre × 1 ft) 300,000

How long they operate in the land As long as good earth is available

After the closure of kiln what happens to the land Agriculture or fishing

Various Types of Fuel used by Brick Kilns

Coal can be used

Coal + waste tyres + old battery shells can be used


Biomass (kg) 0

Coal (kg) 100

Waste tyres + Old battery shells (kg) 100

Equivalent coal (kg) 200

Cost of fuels and source of purchasers biomass transport cost

Biomass (Rs/MT) 3500–3800

Coal (Rs/MT) 7500–8000

Waste tyres + Old battery shells (Rs/MT) 4500–5000

Transportation cost (Rs/MT) Included in above cost

Cost of raw material (sand, clay, lime, etc.) (Rs/1000 bricks)

500

Cost of labour (Rs/1000 bricks) 840

Cost of fuel used (Rs/1000 bricks) 1150

Total manufacturing cost (Rs/1000 bricks) 2490

Energy cost as percentage of total manufacturing cost (%)

46.18

Selling rate of brick kiln ((Rs/1000 bricks) 3100

Selling rate traders in market (Rs/1000 bricks) 3500

Profit (Rs/1000 bricks) 610

Profit per kg of coal (Rs) 3.1

23


Table 9 Contd...Type of Bhatta Haath

BhattaChimney Bhatta

Area / Dump coal/ Biomass coming from (Source) Coal from Bihar and Chhattisgarh through local traders

Ash utilisation Ash either flies away or used for land filling

Source: DSCLES Field Visit

2.1.5 Conclusions

Table 10 shows the distribution of biomass usage in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Ma-harashtra, and Punjab in terms of percentage.

Table 10 Distribution of biomass usage (%)Particulars Rajasthan (%) Chhattisgarh(%) Maharashtra(%) Punjab (%)

Animal fodder 60.0 64.0 44.2 56

Power plant 4.5 18.4 8.4 5.6

Oil mills 6.9 0.9 20.0 –

Net export/(import) 2.3 (5.1) 10.4 17.0

Left in the field 4.5 – – 12.5

Table 10 shows that animal fodder accounts for 44%–64% of the total biomass �usage in different states. As usage of biomass as animal fodder returns maxi-mum economic yield, biomass usage for animal fodder should be accounted for in the internal consumption of biomass.From Table 10, it is clear that optimal power generation capacity of the power �plant in the region corresponds to 4%–8% of the total biomass generation in the region. In Chhattisgarh, the installed power generation capacity is oversized as there is net import of about 5% biomass from the surrounding region. The generation capacity should be decided at 4%–8% of the total biomass genera-tion in the region considering the fact that with industrialisation and infrastruc-ture development of the state, biomass consumption by industrial units and local industries will increase. This strategy will ensure long-term biomass supply to the power plants.As oil mills in Rajasthan and Maharashtra consume biomass as high as 6.9% and �20%, respectively, MNRE can devise a new promotional scheme for the imple-mentation of mini-cogeneration in oil mills.In Rajasthan and Punjab, biomass is left in the fields because of the difficulty �involved in the collection and transportation of low-density biomass. To over-come this hurdle, mechanical equipment such as cutter and baler can be used to improve the collection efficiency of biomass.


24



The profit per kilogram of biomass is much higher in brick kilns than that of bio- �mass-based power plant. As profitability in bricks kilns is much higher, they can afford to pay higher prices for the biomass. This will result in higher earnings for the farmers. As Chimney Bhattas are more efficient and profitable than Haath Bhattas, Haath Bhattas (consuming biomass) can be banned in these states. In Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Chhattisgarh, as the consumption of total bio- �mass by brick kilns is low (in the range of 2%–12%), brick kilns pose no major cause of concern for the biomass-based power plants.As far as cement plants are concerned, their profitability improves by about 3% if �they use biomass in place of coal. Also, in parity with coal prices, these units can afford to pay 20%–25% higher price on biomass than the existing market price.While deciding the biomass cost in tariff calculation, state electricity regulatory �commissions (SERCs) should consider the cost of biomass in parity with existing coal prices. As the profitability of process plants is higher as compared with that of biomass-based power plants, they can afford to pay higher prices for biomass as it is a cheaper alternative to coal. If an SERC considers biomass price in parity with coal prices, power plants will also be in a position to pay a high price for bi-omass. Eventually, the cost advantage to industrial units such as cement plants when they switch the fuel from coal to biomass will no longer be available and it will reduce the consumption of biomass by process plants.

2.2 Cost of Transportation of Biomass Table 11 shows the cost of transportation of biomass for different biomass-based power plants. It can be seen that transportation cost accounts for 9%–14% of the net cost of biomass at boiler inlet.

The cost of transportation of biomass to the plant is calculated for the following spatial distances around the plant site.

Spatial distance less than 15 km: � If the spatial distance is less than 15 km, farmers will bring biomass at the factory gate in tractor-driven trolleys.

Table 12 shows the cost of transportation of biomass for spatial distance less than 15 km.

Spatial distance of 15–50 km: � In this case, farmers will bring biomass at the nearest collection centre or to the nearest dealer by tractor driven trolleys. The power plant has to arrange for transportation of biomass from the collection centre or the dealer.

Table 13 shows the cost of transportation of biomass for a spatial distance of 15–50 km.Spatial distance greater than 50 km: � In this case, biomass will be transported to the factory gate by trucks. Table 14 shows the cost of transportation.

25


Table 11 Cost of transportation of biomassParameters Surya

Chambal Power Ltd

Malwa Power Pvt. Ltd

Vandana Vidyut Ltd

NRI Power & Steel Ltd

Sudha Agro & Chemicals Ltd

Neeraj Power Plant Pvt. Ltd

Rake Power Ltd

Shalivahana Projects Ltd

Cost of biomass at farmer’s/trader’s end (Rs/MT)

850–2000

1500 1900–2100

1600–1800

1600–1800

1600–1800

1900–1950

1720–1770

Cost of transporta-tion of biomass (Rs/MT)

200 250 300 300 300 300 200 200

Cost of biomass handling in factory (Rs/MT)

300 100 100 100 100 100 100 80

Net cost of biomass at boiler inlet (Rs/MT)

1350–2500

1850 2000–2200

2000–2200

2000–2200

2000–2200

2200–2250

2000–2050

Transporta-tion cost as percentage of net cost of biomass (%)

10.53 13.51 14.29 14.29 14.29 14.29 8.99 9.88


Table 12 Cost of transportation of biomass – up to 15 kmParameter Value

Capacity of trolley (Qt) 30

Transportation charges for 10–15 km (Rs) 450

Transportation cost per tonne (Rs) 150

Table 13 Cost of transportation of biomass: 15–50 kmParameter Value

Capacity of trolley (Qt) 30

Transportation charges for 10–15 km up to the collection centre (Rs) 450

Transportation cost up to the collection centre (Rs/T) 150

Transportation charges for 30–50 km from the collection centre to the power plant for 30 Qt (Rs)

700

Transportation charges for 30–50 km from the collection centre to power plant (Rs/T) 233

Total transportation cost (Rs/T) 383


26



2.2.1 Conclusions from the study

Table 15 summarises the transportation cost of biomass.Cost of transportation is directly proportional to the distance from the power �plant.Thus, in order to keep the cost of transportation low, power plants should en- �courage farmers to bring biomass directly to the factory gate or bring biomass to the nearest collection centre.The location of plant site should be selected in such a way that the required �quantity of biomass should be available within the spatial distance of 40–50 km otherwise the transportation cost of biomass will become high leading to increase in landed fuel cost.

Table 15 Transportation cost of biomassTransportation Cost

Value (Rs/tonne)

Fuel cost at depot (Rs/tonne)

Contribution (%)

Up to 15 km 150 1700 8

Up to 35 km 250 1700 13

Up to 50 km 383 1700 18

Above 50 km 428 1700 20

2.3 Strategy on Direct Procurement from Farmers/ Innovative Fuel Linkages

In order to reduce the landed cost of biomass and to achieve long-term fuel avail-ability, power plants have to devise the strategies to procure fuel directly from the farmers. The following strategies are suggested to procure biomass directly from the farmers.

2.3.1 Setting up fuel collection centres

Opening biomass collection centres in areas with high crop production ensures availability of good quality biomass in the cropping season. Collection centres along with weighing bridge can be established in leased land and farmers will be paid in cash against delivery of biomass to the collection centres. Long-term relationship can be maintained with villagers by opening health centre, schools, etc.

Table 14 Cost of transportation of biomass: above 50 kmParameter Value

Capacity of truck (T) 7

Transportation charges for 50–80 km (Rs) 3000

Transportation cost per tonne (Rs/T) 428

27


Disadvantages of the model:Large area of land will be required for storage of biomass. Normally, the land is �taken on lease basis. The initial capital outlay in setting up the collection centre is high as the follow- �ing equipment are required:

Weigh bridge yFuel processing equipment such as chipper machine yTractors with trolleys for transport of biomass yDozer for handling of biomass yBalers to increase fuel density, if required. y

The above equipment can be taken on rent. Also, the operation of the collection centre can be outsourced to a local contractor against fixed payment rate for deliv-ery of biomass to the plant.

2.3.2 Fuel–power barter system

Under this barter system, farmers will supply biomass to the power plant free of cost and the power plant will supply electrical energy free of cost to farmers, equivalent to calculated quantity of biomass delivered by the farmers. The electrical energy will be pumped into the state grid by the power plant. The local discoms (distribu-tion companies) will be instructed to supply pre-determined electrical units to the farmers free of cost. This model will ensure supply of biomass to the power plant as it creates a win-win situation for all the stakeholders involved. The main focus areas for development of the participatory model are as listed below.

Continuous power supply to the designated villages �Supply of generated ash, which is rich in micro nutrient, free to the fuel �suppliersMaintaining transparent accounting system for fuel supply by the farmers (ben- �eficiaries) to the power plant and the quantum of supply of power and ash by the plant to the farmersDevelopment of a net billing mechanism by which utilities charge the farmers �for excess consumption (beyond their entitlement) under fuel-linked mecha-nism and pay to the power plant for the units drawn by the utility from the plant after adjusting for the entitled quantity under the barter scheme.Adequately sizing the plant to meet the export obligation to the maximum pos- �sible extent.

2.3.3 Entering into partnership with local panchayats

Entering into partnership or agreement with local panchayats will ensure long-term biomass supply to the power plant. The cutting, collection, processing (chipping),


28



and transportation of biomass will be done by local villagers under the supervision of panchayats.

The panchayat would be encouraged to take equity investment in the project and would be supplied equity energy equivalent. The panchayat would manage a ru-ral energy supply business (RESCO) based on the equity energy received from the project. The panchayat would also supply biomass to the project as per a fuel supply agreement and can get either cash payment for the same or more free energy for the RESCO. This free energy would be sold to local households and small industries in the villages. This model has the potential of transforming the economic develop-ment of the area around the power plant due to multiple benefits as listed below.

Improved availability of power (24/7) �Income from sale of agro residue �Employment for fuel logistics �Employment in plant operation �Development of a number of associated economic activities such as small in- �dustry and entertainment centresIndirect benefits would include social development, particularly in the areas of �education, water supply, hygiene and medical care, etc.

2.3.4 Establishing farmers’ biomass co-operatives

Establishing farmers’ biomass co-operatives would have its benefits, as cited below.

Developing confidence amongst farmers on payment security and timely �disposalEvenly managed collection over the period of procurement �Improving the harvesting and logistics technologies by supporting investment �in mechanisationReducing biomass wastage �Prevention of local pollution due to field burning �

Farmers’ co-operatives already exist in most of the states. It should be possible to develop and implement the model with support from state governments.

2.4 Technical Feasibility on Co-firing

2.4.1 Situational analysis

Table 16 shows co-firing in various plants visited by DSCLES.

It is clear from the Table 16 that all plants are using multi-fuel technology and are capable of co-firing. The plants are using either travelling grate or bottom hopper AFBC or AFBC boiler for multi-fuel combustion.

29


Tab

le 1

6 C

o-fi

rin

g in

var

iou

s pl

ants

Par

amet

erS

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt. L

tdV

and

ana

Vid

yut

Ltd

NR

I P

ower

an

d S

teel

L

td

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d C

hem

ical

s L

td

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Cap

acit

y (M

W)

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.5

107.

510

10

Ste

am p

ress

ure

(a

ta)

6865

6866

6867

6666

Ste

am

tem

pera

ture

(°C

)45

046

549

548

548

550

048

048

0

Bio

mas

s –M

ajor

Mu

star

d r

esid

ue

Cot

ton

sti

cks

Ric

e hu

skR

ice

husk

Ric

e hu

skR

ice

husk

Ric

e hu

sk,

Soy

a hu

sk,

Whe

at s

traw

Ric

e hu

sk,

Bag

asse

Bio

mas

s -

Min

or

Gro

un

dn

ut

resi

du

e,

Soy

abea

n

resi

du

e, J

ulie

fl

ora

Mu

star

d r

esid

ue,

Whe

at

stra

w, S

arka

nd

a, W

ood

tr

imm

ings

D

e-oi

led

ca

ke, S

aw

du

st

Cot

ton

sti

ck,

Saw

du

st,

Woo

d c

hips

Cot

ton

st

ick,

Whe

at

stra

w, C

hilly

st

icks

, Soy

a hu

sk, J

ulie

fl

ora,

Tre

e tr

imm

ings

, B

ambo

o hu

sk

Com

bust

ion

te

chn

olog

yT

rave

llin

g gr

ate

Bot

tom

hop

per

anae

robi

c fl

uid

ized

-bed

com

bust

ion

(A

FB

C)

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

Tabl

e 16

con

td..

.


30



Tab

le 1

6 C

ontd

...

Par

amet

erS

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt. L

tdV

and

ana

Vid

yut

Ltd

NR

I P

ower

an

d S

teel

L

td

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d C

hem

ical

s L

td

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Co-

firi

ng

fuel

co

mbi

nat

ion

sM

ust

ard

res

idu

e (9

5%)

+ S

oya

husk

(5%

)

a) M

ust

ard

hu

sk (

25%

) +

R

ice

husk

(20

%)

+ C

otto

n

stic

ks (

50%

) +

Fir

e w

ood

tr

imm

ing

(5%

) b)

Whe

at s

traw

(70

%)

+

Cot

ton

sti

cks

(10

%)

+

Mu

star

d h

usk

(10

%)

+

Sar

kan

da

(10%

)

Ric

e hu

sk (

80

%–8

5%)

+

Coa

l (10

%–

15%

)

Ric

e hu

sk (

80%

–85%

) +

C

oal (

15%

–20%

) +

Saw

d

ust

(2%

) +

De-

oile

d c

akes

(1

%)

(Saw

du

st a

nd

de-

oile

d

cake

is u

sed

whe

n e

ver

avai

labl

e.)

Ric

e hu

sk

(80%

–82%

) +

Coa

l (15

%)

+ W

aste

of

rice

bra

n

from

ow

n

un

it (

3%)

+

De-

oile

d c

ake

(1%

) +

Saw

d

ust

(0.

5%)

Ric

e hu

sk

(80%

–85%

) +

Coa

l (1

5%–2

0%)

Whe

at s

traw

(3

0%–3

5%)

+ S

oya

du

st

(40%

) +

C

otto

n s

talk

(1

0% +

Ric

e hu

sk (

10%

+

Woo

d c

hips

an

d S

aw d

ust

(2

%)

+ C

oal

(5%

–10

%)

Ric

e hu

sk

(50%

) +

C

otto

n s

talk

(1

5%)

+

Julie

flor

a (5

%) W

heat

st

raw

(0.

5%)

+ C

hilly

sta

lk

(0.2

5%)

+ C

oal

(30%

–40%

)

Sou

rce:

DS

CL

ES

Fie

ld V

isit

31


Co-firing, which is defined as simultaneous combustion of different fuels in the same boiler, provides the following advantages for biomass-based power plants.

As different fuels can be combusted simultaneously, it helps in achieving high �capacity utilisation and high PLF.If coal is being combusted along with biomass, it leads to higher combustion �temperature, improves combustion efficiency, lower excess air, and improves cycle efficiency.

The advantages if biomass is co-fired in the existing fossil fuel-based power plants are listed below.

Environmental benefits: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and toxic gas- �es such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter. Investment requirement is low: Only necessary modifications are required. �Flexible operation: Original plant can operate still at 100% load with fossil fuel. �Co-firing facility is less sensitive to seasonality in biomass production and to biomass availability and price.Carrot for development of biomass markets: Many European countries have �proved that promoting co-firing would help develop biomass markets as well as create expertise on biomass handling and combustion.4

2.4.2 Issues involved with co-firing

The challenges that co-firing poses to boiler operation mostly originate from fuel properties. The differences in characteristics of coal and biomass can be summa-rised as below.5

Pyrolysis starts earlier for biomass fuels compared with coal fuels. �The volatile matter content of biomass is higher compared with that of coal. �The fractional heat contribution by volatile substances in biomass is approxi- �mately 70% as compared with 30%–40% in coal.The specific heating value of volatiles in kJ per kg is lower for biomass fuels as �compared with coal fuel as they have high moisture content.Biomass char has more oxygen as compared with coal and it is more porous and �reactive.Biomass fuels have ash that is more alkaline in nature, which may aggravate the �fouling problems. In biomass fuels, the inorganic compounds are in the form of salts or bound �in the organic matter. However, in peat, for example, the inorganic matter is bound mostly in silicates, which are more stable at elevated temperatures.Biomass fuels can be high in chlorine, but typically have low nitrogen, sulphur, �and ash content.

4 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-firing5 Source: www.ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/co-firing


32



The handling and flow properties of biofuels are usually poor because of parti- �cle size variation and low density resulting in expensive and complicated fuel handling system.

2.4.3 Description of combustion technologies capable of co-firing

Travelling Grate �In travelling grate spreader stoker designs, the entire bottom of the furnace is a slow moving platform or conveyor forming the grate. The grate is cooled by air fed from under the grate. In this way, the grate mechanism and its cooling system define the maximum acceptable air temperature under the grate, which, correspondingly, defines the moisture content of the fuel that can be burned. Water-cooled walls could be used to prevent slag formation adjacent to the stoker. Fuel is fed from a pneumatic spreader stoker system located on the front of the furnace. In this way, smaller, dryer fuel particles are burnt in suspension, while the larger particles fall in a thin layer on the moving grate. As the ash is continuously discharged, the fuel has to burn at a uniform rate and at a sufficient speed.

Figure 6 Travelling grate combustion technologySource www.thermax.com

33


Advantages1. Up to 5%–10% coal can be combusted along with biomass in travelling grate

boiler without any major design modification. With increase in percentage of coal above 10%, the chances of clinker formation increases.

2. Capable of co-firing one biomass with another biomass, e.g. mustard residue with groundnut shell.

3. Multi-fuel firing capacity (bagasse, coal, lignite, rice husk, cotton stalk, bagasse pith, wood chips, cane trash, and other biomass)

4. High efficiency features Large grate area, tall furnace, and high residence time yGrit refiring system yGenerously sized heat recovery system yLow excess air y

5. Lower auxiliary power consumption Single pass boiler bank design yLow excess air y

Atmospheric fluidised-bed combustion �Atmospheric fluidised-bed combustion (AFBC) boilers offer efficient, cost-effective, and reliable steam generation. In fluidised-bed systems, the combustion air from below the boiler has such a high speed that the fuel becomes a seething mass of particles and bubbles. Carbon burnout efficiency is high in fluidised-bed systems. Another important advantage is the possibility to control NOx creation by low com-bustion temperatures and to minimise SOx creation in the case of fossil fuel co-fir-ing. The AFBC technology promises to provide a viable alternative to conventional coal-fired and other solid fuel-fired boilers.

Figure 7 AFBC combustion technologySource www.thermax.com


34



Advantages1. Can combust around 15%–30% coal along with biomass. The coal is being fed

underbed while biomass is being fed overbed. Above 30% coal, the fluidisation of bed becomes difficult.

2. Capable of co-firing fuels such as coal with biomass and one biomass with an-other such as rice husk with wood chips. Suitable for cogeneration and captive power, multi-fuel firing, underbed/overbed fuel feeding options

3. High efficiency featuresLarge freeboard height leading to high residence time y

4. Lower auxiliary power consumptionSingle pass boiler bank design yLow excess air y

5. Other featuresSectionalised bed for high turndown yOptimum fluidising velocity and staged combustion y

AFBC with bottom hopper �Bottom hopper AFBC is similar to conventional AFBC design except that there is no distribution plate at the bottom. The bottom of the furnace is open and there is a hopper beneath the furnace in which the ash drops after combustion of fuel. As there are no ash drains in this technology, it is far easier and quick to remove ash from the bed. As a result, fuels that are difficult to burn such as wheat straw, washery rejects, and pet coke can be burnt easily in this type of boiler. The design of boiler reduces the chances of clinker formation.

Figure 8 AFBC with bottom hopperSource www.thermax.com

35


Advantages1. Capable of co-firing fuels such as cotton sticks with mustard residue, cotton

sticks with wheat straw, and cotton sticks with paddy straw2. Can combust fuels that are difficult to burn such as washery rejects and pet

coke3. Minimum unburnt fuel4. Reduced carbon monoxide emissions and improved efficiency

Table 17 shows the most efficient combustion technology for different types of bio-mass with expected efficiency level.

Table 17 Expected efficiency level for different types of biomassType of biomass Efficient combustion technology Expected

efficiency (%)

Mustard residue Bottom hopper anerobic fluidised-bed combustion (AFBC) 80–81

Paddy straw Travelling grate 70–77

Rice husk AFBC 80–81

Bagasse Travelling grate 70–71

Cotton stick Bottom hopper AFBC 80–81

Groundnut shell Bottom hopper AFBC 80–81

Source: DSCLES Databank

2.5 Policy on Fuel LinkageIn order to achieve long-term fuel security for biomass-based power plants, it is necessary to develop a uniform policy on fuel linkage. Some of the policy measures suggested are given below.

2.5.1 Defining the zone or catchment area for a power plant

In order to achieve long-term fuel availability, the catchment area or biomass collec-tion zone for a power plant should be well defined prior to allotment of any project. In Rajasthan, the catchment area of 40 km is defined and no other power plant can be installed within 40 km spatial distance from the existing or allotted power plant site. In Punjab, the whole tehsil is defined as the catchment area while in Chhattis-garh and Maharashtra, there is no well-defined catchment area policy. As discussed in Section 1.2 (‘Transportation cost of biomass’), the transportation cost of biomass becomes high above 40 km distance. Thus, the catchment area for power plants should be kept under the 40 km radius. Thus, the catchment area between 35 and 40 km should be defined for any power plant at the time of allocation of the project and no new power plant should be allowed within 35–40 km spatial distance of the existing or the proposed power plant.


36



2.5.2 Controlling the movement of biomass outside the catchment

area of power plant

The export of biomass outside the catchment area is a major cause of concern for any power plant as it directly reduces the long-term fuel security. To reduce or con-trol the movement of biomass outside the catchment area, the following policy measures are suggested.

Providing subsidy to the plant to purchase fuel procurement equipment and provid- �ing government land to open collection centres in the catchment area: The repre-sentatives of the plant will go to the villages and educate the farmers about the earning opportunity by selling the biomass. The farmers will be motivated to bring biomass to the collection centres where they will be paid in cash against the delivery. Local people can be employed in the logistics of biomass. In this way, villagers can be motivated to the biomass to the power plant. As collection cen-tres require large area,government land can be provided on lease to such centres. The fuel logistics require huge capital for purchase of equipment such as cutters, trucks, tractors, balers, chippers, and weighing bridge. Fuel logistics is an impor-tant area of any successful power plant operation as it directly affects the PLF and profitability of the plant. Providing capital subsidy will encourage plants to open collection centres and help in achieving sustainable long-term fuel supply.Biomass prices in parity with coal prices � : While deciding the biomass cost in tariff calculation, SERCs should consider the cost of biomass in parity with existing coal prices. As the profitability of process plants is higher as compared with bi-omass-based power plants, they pay higher price for biomass as it is a cheaper alternative to coal. If SERC considers biomass price in parity with coal prices, power plants will also be in a position to pay high prices for biomass. Eventually, the cost advantage to industrial units such as cement plants when they switch the fuel from coal to biomass will no longer be available and it will reduce the consumption of biomass by process plants.Encouraging plants to enter into partnership with local panchayats � : This issue has been discussed above.Encouraging development of farmers’ biomass co-operatives � : Discussed earlier in the report.

2.6 Appropriate Sizing of Power Plant Considering Long-term Fuel Security and Sustainability

Biomass assessment methodology needs to improve to more accurately determine various aspects like biomass generation, usage by the farmers, wastages in collec-tion, and available surplus. This study has helped develop a methodology for com-petitive economic analysis for use of surplus biomass. The present study is based on a few sample plants and as such statistically not adequate to justify recommenda-tion of this methodology as a standard tool.

37


The study has highlighted the need for further development of biomass assess-ment methodology. One definite conclusion, however, has been made. If the plant is configured to use maximum 10% of the available biomass and the transportation cost is about 10% of the overall fuel cost, the operation has been found satisfactory. These two factors have, therefore, been recommended for use as a generic guide-line for determining the capacity of a plant.

On the basis of DSCLES experience, the following capacities can be considered as general guidelines:

5–8 MW in areas with single cropping practice �Maximum 12 MW in areas that are agriculturally rich �

2.7 Related to Grid Particularly for Evacuation of Power, Grid Stabilisation, Losses in T&D

Table 18 shows the operation and maintenance (O&M) issues faced by biomass-based power plants in different states. It can be inferred that tripping of power plants on account of non-availability of grid is an issue of concern for all the power plants. The reason attributed to the problem is rostering of power as per the utility’s rostering programme, load shedding, shut down/maintenance of utility’s network, and unscheduled tripping on account of poor maintenance/operation practices at their end. Tripping also takes place in the night due to over-voltages appearing on the transmission line network.

Table 19 shows the transmission line voltage and the loss of biomass-based power plants in different states. Most of the plants are having transmission line voltage of 33 kV and transmission losses are in the range of 0.5%–1.0%. On account of low transmission voltage (less than 132 kV), the frequency of plant tripping is high.

2.7.1 Recommendations on the issue

Switch over to higher voltage transmission (132 kV and above) to improve sys- �tem stability, reduce pilferage and thefts to a sizeable extent, and lessen the occurrence of trippings and breakdowns. Also, the availability of the grid is high because higher voltage network is not subjected to rostering, etc. Opt for higher transmission voltage to reduce T&D losses. �Select the location of a plant as close as possible to the grid sub-station to re- �duce transmission line capital expenditure and transmission losses.


38



Table18 Operation and maintenance issues of power plantsParameter Surya

Chambal Power Ltd

Malwa Power Pvt. Ltd

Vandana Vidyut Ltd

NRI Power and Steel Ltd

Sudha Agro and Chemicals Ltd

Neeraj Power Plant Pvt. Ltd

Rake Power Ltd

Shalivahana Projects Ltd

Non-availability of manpower

X X X X X X X X

Ash fusion √ √ X X X X X X

Superheater corrosion

√ √ X X X X X X

Fuel handling and feeding problem

√ X X X X X X X

Boiler bed coil failure

X X X X √ X X X

TG Overhaul/ Repair

X X X X X X X X

Tripping due to non-availability of grid

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

No. of trippings per month

8–10 10–15 10–15 20–25 15–20 15–20 5–10 100–150


Table 19 Transmission voltage and lossName of the plant Metering point Transmission

voltage (kV)Transmission loss (%)

Malwa Power Pvt. Ltd In plant 66 0.5–1.0

Rake Power Ltd In plant 33 0.5–1.0

Shalivahana Projects Ltd In plant 33 0.5–1.0

Vandana Vidhyut Ltd Grid Sub. Station 33 0.5–1.0

NRI Power and Steel Ltd Grid Sub. Station 33 0.5–1.0

Sudha Agro Oils and Chemicals Ltd Grid Sub. Station 33 0.5–1.0

Neeraj Power (Pvt.) Ltd Grid Sub. Station 33 0.5–1.0


a d d i t i o n a l s u b m i s s i o n s o n o r i g i n a l t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e

o f t h e a s s i g n m e n t

3

40



3.1 Reporting Structure

3.1.1 Preparation of structured database

Fuel and plant �Biomass availability assessment including competitive use of biomass for ydifferent activities and price structure Current practices for managing biomass logistics including innovative ypractices Assessment of cost of biomass as fired yProblem in availability of biomass and usage of fossil fuel yPrice structure of fossil fuel and biomass yCompetitive usage of biomass in the potential states y

Power plant promoters, projects, and operational performance including bio- �mass usage, O&M, PPA conditionsPerceptions of promoters on state and regulatory policies �Policy and regulatory aspects �

Existing fiscal and financial incentives by MNRE state policy/guidelines and yprocedures for clearances/NOCs /approvalsState monitoring mechanism for usage of fossil fuels yState policy support/incentives yStatus of open access and power trading y

3.1.2 Review, analysis, synthesis of data and information and their

validation through field visits

Barrier analysis �Policy and regulatory framework y

Local, social, and environmental impacts �Technical yProject financing ySustainable biomass fuel linkage y

Comparative evaluation of policies and practices �Policy and regulatory support including incentives in different states yFuel usage by different plants yMonitoring mechanism practised by different SNAs yFuel procurement practices by different plants y

Review of innovative model developed by any plant for fuel procurement �

3.1.3. Development of generic guidelines and technical

recommendation reports

Recommendations report on barrier removal �

41


Additional Submissions on Original Terms of Reference of the Assignment

Policy and regulatory framework yTechnical yProject financing ySustainable biomass fuel linkage y

Fuel assessment methodology and plant capacity configuration �Defining the command/catchment area yAvailability of sites/locations for setting up 5/10 MW units y

State-level policy guidelines �Suggested amendments in the notifications/guidelines y

3.1.4 Development of strategy for better utilization of biomass

for grid-connected power generation and suggested

amendments/modifications

Fiscal and financial incentives from central and state governments �Regulatory purchase obligations �Preferential tariff �Market tariff and open access �

3.2 Methodology Followed for the StudyFigure 9 shows the methodology that was followed for the study.

3.2.1 Field visit

The following biomass-based power plants were visited and data were collected, compiled, and analysed.

Malwa Power Pvt. Ltd, Muktasar, Punjab �Surya Chambal Power Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan �Vandana Vidyut Ltd, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh �NRI Power and Steel Ltd, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh �Sudha Agro and Chemicals Ltd, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh �Neeraj Power Plant Pvt. Ltd, Raipur, Chhattisgarh �Rake Power Ltd, Nagpur, Maharashtra �Shalivahana Projects Ltd, Yavatmal, Maharashtra �

The following SNAs were visited and various issues, policies, and regulations relat-ed to biomass-based power generation were collected, compiled, compared, and analysed.

Punjab Energy Development Authority �Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd �Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Authority �Maharashtra Energy Development Authority �

42



Figure 9 Methodology followed for the study

3.2.2 Structured database

Policy and regulatory aspects �

Sl no. Item (unit) Maharashtra Punjab Chhattisgarh Rajasthan

1 Cumulative capacity of commissioned projects (MW)

95 7.5 167.49 46.3

2 Potential of biomass power projects (MW)

1781 3145 303.83 1000

3 Conversion of potential into projects (%)

5.33 0.24 55.13 4.63

4 No. of projects commissioned 9 1 20 5

5 No. of projects in pipeline 21 30 12 7

6 Who initiates project identification? (SNA or Developer)

SNA SNA and Developer

Developer Developer

7 Whether single window clearance present? (Yes/No)

No Yes No Yes

8 Whether Committee for project appraisal present in SNA? (Yes/No)

No Yes No Yes

43



9 What is the timeline mentioned for clearance of project under single window mechanism (Days)

Not applicable

60 Not applicable

30

10 Whether deemed clearance is allowed in case of delay from SNA/other approving organization? (Yes/No)

No Yes No No

11 Whether any facilitation/service charges are levied on the project developer by SNA for getting all the approvals? (Yes/No)

No Yes No No

12 Clarity and transparency in bid evaluation/licensee selection mechanism ( High/Low/ Not Applicable)

Low High Low Low

13 Energy allocation in kind for development of SNA? (Yes/No)

No Yes No No

14 Who bears the cost of the power evacuation system? (State government or Developer)

State government and Developer

Developer Developer Developer

15 Any assistance in availing CDM benefit from the SNA? (Yes/No)

No Yes No No

16 Whether penalty present for slow performance after allotment of project? (Yes/No)

Yes No No Yes

17 Whether consumption of fossil fuel allowed? (Yes/No)

Yes No Yes Yes

18 No. of formats collected from biomass power plant?

4 0 1 3

19 What is the comment of SNA on the promptness of reply from power plant owners? (Poor/Good/Not applicable)

Poor Not applicable

Poor Poor

20 When was the latest policy promulgated? (Year)

2008 2006 2001 2004

21 Is the tariff for biomass power pre-determined? (Yes/No)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

22 Tariff determined for how many years

13 Life of the plant

10 20

23 Is the tariff for biomass power defined as single part or two part?

Two part Single part

Two part Single part and two part

24 What is the tariff for biomass power (water-cooled compressors) in 2009/10? (Rs/kWh)

4.28 4.04 3.14 4.53

25 What is the tariff for biomass power (air-cooled compressors) in 2009/10? (Rs/kWh)

Not defined Not defined

Not defined 4.95


44




26 What is the annual escalation of variable part tariff? (%)

5 5 5 5

27 Biomass fuel price considered for tariff determination (Rs/tonne)

2045 Not defined

1085 1216

28 GCV of biomass considered for tariff determination (kcal/kg)

3300 Not defined

3300 3400

29 Is banking of power allowed? (Yes/No)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

30 What is the period within which banking clause has to be availed? (Months)

12 12 3 1

31 What are charges for banking? (%) Nil Nil 2 UI rate

32 Renewable purchase obligation declared for how many years

4 5 3 6

33 Is RPO defined for biomass power exclusively? (Yes/No)

No No Yes Yes

34 RPO for biomass power/RE power in 2009/10 (%)

6 2 5 1.45–2.95

35 Is open access allowed after first PPA lifetime? (Yes/No)

Yes No No Yes

36 Is there any option for faster realization of revenue from SEB/licensee? (Yes/No/Case to case)

No Yes Yes Case to case

37 Any awards to SNA for the development of biomass power? (Yes/No)

Yes No No No

Snapshot of plant survey �Table 20 provides details of biomass-based power plants visited by DSCLES.

Fuel and plant �Table 21 shows the structured database of biomass-based power plants visited by DSCLES.

3.2.3 Barrier analysis

Policy and regulatory aspects �Table 22 analyses the barriers with respect to policy and regulatory aspects.

Technical (projects/products) deliverables �Improper selection of process parameters for different fuels/fuel mix y : In many plants, improper selection of process parameters leads to low efficiency or poor performance of plants in terms of PLF. For example, in the case of Malwa Power Plant, the initial design steam outlet temperature was 480 °C.

45


Table 20 Details of biomass-based power plantsPlant Capacity

(MW)Configuration (Bar /°C)

Combustion technology

Plant load factor (2008/09) (%)

Fuel used - biomass

Coal(Tonnes)

Biomass (%)

Surya 7.5 68/450 Travelling grate

89 Mustard residue - 80,000 T

0 100

Malwa 7.5 67/465 Bottom hopper AFBC

90 Cotton sticks - 80,000 T

0 100

Sudha 10.0 68/485 AFBC 80 Rice husk-85,000 T

24,000 78

NRI 7.5 66/485 AFBC 90 Rice husk-58,000 T

14,600 80

Neeraj 7.5 67/500 AFBC 85 Rice husk -55,845 T

13,961 80

Vandana 7.7 68/495 AFBC 87 Rice husk -70,000 T

18,000 80

Rake 10.0 66/480 AFBC 95 Rice husk, soya husk, wheat straw- 84,468 T

12,621 87

Shalivahana 10.0 66/480 AFBC 90 Rice husk, bagasse – 83,767 T

14,782 85

However, due to excessive ash fouling of superheater tubes resulting in fre-quent boiler stoppage, steam temperature had to be reduced.Improper selection of combustion technology for different fuel/fuel mix y : As discussed above, improper selection of combustion technology will lead to lower Rankine efficiency of cycle and low PLF. For example, the current recommended technology for multi-fuel is travelling grate, which has lower efficiency. The Malwa project seems to have established AFBC as a viable technology for multi-fuel usage including low density biomass.Sourcing of plant from inexperienced vendors y : Some of the developers have procured lower cost plants with consequent O&M penalty. For example, Suryachambal Power Plant Ltd procured boiler from Sitson and faced a lot of problems due to superheater fouling and choking in fuel handling system. Improper design of fuel handling and feeding system y : Fuel handling becomes important, primarily when low density fuels (straw, stalks, etc.) are used. For example, Suryachambal Power Plant Ltd had to shut a plant down on a number of occasions initially because of the inadequate design of the fuel handling system.


46



Tab

le 2

1 S

tru

ctu

red

dat

abas

e of

pow

er p

lan

tsP

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Cap

acit

y (M

W)

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.5

107.

510

10

Ste

am p

ress

ure

(a

ta)

6865

6866

6867

6666

Ste

am

tem

pera

ture

(°C

)45

046

549

548

548

550

048

048

0

Bio

mas

s –

Maj

orM

ust

ard

res

idu

eC

otto

n s

tick

sR

ice

husk

Ric

e hu

skR

ice

husk

Ric

e hu

skR

ice

husk

, so

ya h

usk

, w

heat

str

aw

Ric

e hu

sk,

baga

sse

Bio

mas

s –

Min

or

Gro

un

dn

ut

resi

du

e,

soya

bean

re

sid

ue,

Ju

lie

flor

a

Mu

star

d r

esid

ue,

w

heat

str

aw,

sark

and

a, w

ood

tr

imm

ings

D

eoile

d c

ake,

sa

w d

ust

, coa

l–

–C

otto

n

stic

k, s

aw

du

st, w

ood

ch

ips

Cot

ton

sti

ck,

whe

at s

traw

, ch

illy

stic

ks,

soya

hu

sk,

Julie

flor

a, t

ree

trim

min

gs,

bam

boo

husk

An

nu

al b

iom

ass

con

sum

ptio

n (

T)

80,0

0080

,000

70,0

0058

,000

85,0

0055

,845

84,4

6883

,767

An

nu

al c

oal

con

sum

ptio

n (

T)

00

18,0

0014

,600

24,0

0013

,961

12,6

2114

,782

Coa

l co

nsu

mpt

ion

–s

hare

of

tota

l co

nsu

mpt

ion

(%

)

00

2020

2220

1315

Pla

nt

load

fac

tor

(%)

8990

8790

8085

9590

Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

47


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Com

bust

ion

te

chn

olog

yT

rave

llin

g gr

ate

Bot

tom

hop

per

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

AF

BC

Ava

ilin

g of

su

bsid

y (Y

es/N

o)N

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oN

o

Exc

ise

exem

ptio

n

((Y

es/N

o/P

arti

al)

Yes

Par

tial

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Acc

eler

ated

d

epre

ciat

ion

(Y

es/

No)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inco

me

tax

holid

ay (

Yes

/No)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Fu

el d

eliv

ery

poin

t

Fac

tory

gat

e√

√√

√√

√√

√

Col

lect

ion

cen

tre

X√

XX

XX

X√

Fu

el d

eliv

ered

by

Far

mer

s√

√X

XX

XX

√

Tra

der

s√

X√

√√

√√

√

Tra

nsp

orte

rs√

XX

XX

X√

√

By

own

per

son

nel

XX

XX

XX

X√

Mod

e of

pay

men

t (C

ash/

Cre

dit

)C

ash

Cas

hC

ash

Cas

hC

ash

Cas

hC

ash

Cas

h


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

48



Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Cos

t of

bio

mas

s at

far

mer

’s/

trad

er’s

en

d

(Rs/

T)

850–

2000

1500

1900

–210

016

00–1

800

1600

–180

016

00–1

800

1900

–195

017

20–1

770

Cos

t of

tr

ansp

orta

tion

of

biom

ass

(Rs/

T)

200

250

300

300

300

300

200

200

Cos

t of

bio

mas

s ha

nd

ling

in

fact

ory

(Rs/

T)

300

100

100

100

100

100

100

80

Net

cos

t of

bi

omas

s at

boi

ler

inle

t (R

s/T

)

1350

–250

018

5020

00–2

200

2000

–220

020

00–2

200

2000

–220

022

00–2

250

2000

–205

0

Pro

blem

s in

bio

mas

s av

aila

bilit

y (Y

es/N

o)

Exp

ort

of b

iom

ass

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Use

by

bric

k ki

lns

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Use

by

cem

ent

plan

tN

oN

o Y

es Y

es Y

es Y

esN

o Y

es

Use

by

solv

ent

ind

ust

ryN

oN

o Y

es Y

es Y

es Y

es Y

es Y

es

Use

by

pape

r pl

ant

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

N

o

Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

49


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Use

by

conv

enti

onal

th

erm

al p

lan

t/ot

her

biom

ass

pow

er p

lan

ts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Use

by

coge

ner

atio

n

pow

er p

lan

t

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Use

by

proc

ess

plan

t N

o N

o Y

es Y

es Y

es Y

es N

o N

o

Mar

ket

bein

g m

anip

ula

ted

by

trad

ers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inco

rrec

t an

d

poor

qu

alit

y of

bi

omas

s

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Ope

rati

on a

nd

m

ain

ten

ance

is

sues

(Y

es/N

o)

Non

-ava

ilabi

lity

of m

anpo

wer

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

fu

sion

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Su

perh

eate

r co

rros

ion

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

50



Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Fu

el h

and

ling

and

fe

edin

g pr

oble

m Y

es N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o

Boi

ler

bed

coi

l fa

ilure

N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es N

o N

o N

o

TG

ove

rhau

l/re

pair

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Tri

ppin

g d

ue

to

non

-ava

ilabi

lity

of g

rid

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PPA

con

dit

ion

s (Y

es/N

o)

Sin

gle-

part

tar

iff

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Dou

ble-

part

tar

iff

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Esc

alat

ion

as

per

chan

ge in

fu

el

cost

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Pro

mot

ers’

per

cept

ion

on

sta

te a

nd

reg

ula

tory

pol

icie

s

Su

ppor

t fr

om

SN

A (

Goo

d/

Sat

isfa

ctor

y/P

oor)

Sat

isfa

ctor

yS

atis

fact

ory

Sat

isfa

ctor

yS

atis

fact

ory

Sat

isfa

ctor

yS

atis

fact

ory

Sat

isfa

ctor

yS

atis

fact

ory

Is r

evis

ion

of

tari

ff

in p

ace

wit

h fu

el

cost

? (Y

es/N

o)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

How

eas

y is

to

obta

in

perm

issi

on t

o u

se

gove

rnm

ent

lan

d?

(Eas

y/D

iffi

cult

/N

A)

Dif

ficu

ltD

iffi

cult

Dif

ficu

ltD

iffi

cult

Dif

ficu

ltD

iffi

cult

NA

NA

Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

51


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Tim

e ta

ken

for

fi

nal

isat

ion

of

PPA

(M

onth

s???

)

67

67

87

56

Tim

e ta

ken

for

P

CB

app

rova

l (M

onth

s???

)

88

89

88

87

Is o

pen

acc

ess

allo

wed

? (Y

es/N

o)N

o N

o Y

es N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o

Un

iqu

e fe

atu

res

a) R

egis

tere

d

CD

M

proj

ect

b) N

o co

al

con

sum

ptio

n

a) S

peci

al b

otto

m

hopp

er d

esig

n

of A

FB

C b

oile

r ca

pabl

e of

mu

lti-

fuel

firi

ng.

It

can

u

se 7

0% w

heat

st

raw

an

d 3

0%

cott

on s

tick

s.

b) N

ot u

sin

g co

al

at a

ll.

c) D

evel

oped

52

ow

n f

uel

co

llect

ion

cen

tres

an

d m

obile

ch

ippe

rs.

d)

Reg

iste

red

CD

M

proj

ect.

a) T

o u

tilis

e as

h, a

bri

ck

plan

t in

pla

nt

prem

ises

of

capa

city

40

lakh

/yea

r ha

s be

en in

stal

led

. b)

A la

rge

shed

is

ere

cted

to

save

bio

mas

s fu

el g

etti

ng

wet

in r

ain

, et

c.

Par

t of

the

bi

omas

s fu

el is

bei

ng

colle

cted

in

own

col

lect

ion

ce

ntr

es b

y ow

n

man

pow

er u

p to

50

km

rad

ius.

Was

te r

ice

is

bein

g u

sed

as

biom

ass

fuel

(3

000

T/y

ear)

Not

ap

plic

able

Not

ap

plic

able

a) U

p to

10

km r

adiu

s,

farm

ers

brin

g bi

omas

s (c

otto

n

stal

k, J

ulie

fl

ora,

etc

.)

to t

he p

lan

t ga

te.

b) 5

col

lect

ion

ce

ntr

es

open

ed b

y co

mpa

ny in

20

08/0

9.

c) E

very

yea

r,

5 n

ew

colle

ctio

n

cen

tres

will

be

ad

ded

.


Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.

52



Tabl

e 21

Con

td..

.P

aram

eter

(u

nit

)S

ury

acha

mba

l P

ower

Ltd

Mal

wa

Pow

er P

vt.

Ltd

Van

dan

a V

idyu

t L

tdN

RI

Pow

er a

nd

S

teel

Ltd

Su

dha

Agr

o an

d

Che

mic

als

Ltd

Nee

raj

Pow

er P

lan

t P

vt. L

td

Rak

e P

ower

L

tdS

haliv

ahan

a P

roje

cts

Ltd

Su

gges

tion

s by

the

pla

nt

own

ers

Wan

t in

crea

se in

ta

riff

lin

ked

to

biom

ass

fuel

pri

ce

rise

in m

arke

t an

nu

ally

(Y

es/N

o)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wan

t ce

rtai

n

perc

enta

ge o

f po

wer

in o

pen

ac

cess

of

the

tota

l po

wer

exp

orte

d t

o co

mpe

nsa

te h

igh

fuel

pri

ce a

nd

be

tter

pro

fita

bilit

y (Y

es/N

o)

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

53


Tab

le 2

2 A

nal

ysis

of

barr

iers

rel

ated

to

polic

y an

d r

egu

lato

ry a

spec

tsA

spec

tP

un

jab

Raj

asth

anC

hhat

tisg

arh

Mah

aras

htra

Pro

ject

al

loca

tion

/ ap

prov

al

Fin

al s

elec

tion

of

bid

der

bas

ed o

n

�sh

are

of e

ner

gy a

llott

ed t

o P

ED

AN

o su

ppor

t fr

om R

RE

C o

n

�si

te id

enti

fica

tion

an

d in

form

a-ti

on o

n b

iom

ass

avai

labi

lity

or

biom

ass

pow

er p

oten

tial

No

supp

ort

from

CR

ED

A o

n

�si

te id

enti

fica

tion

an

d in

form

a-ti

on o

n b

iom

ass

avai

labi

lity

or

biom

ass

pow

er p

oten

tial

Nil

�

Sta

tuto

ry

appr

oval

s an

d

clea

ran

ces

SN

A -

sin

gle

win

dow

cle

aran

ce a

s �pe

r po

licy,

info

rmat

ion

for

war

din

g au

thor

ity

– in

pra

ctic

e, in

spi

te o

f al

l th

e ch

arge

s co

llect

ed f

rom

the

dev

el-

oper

for

fac

ilita

tion

The

dev

elop

er h

as t

o fo

llow

up

wit

h �th

e re

spec

tive

dep

artm

ents

, tho

ugh

so

met

imes

SN

A p

rovi

des

ass

ista

nce

Dee

med

cle

aran

ce is

on

ly in

lett

er,

�n

ot in

spi

rit

Sta

te L

evel

Em

pow

ered

Com

- �m

itte

e pa

ssiv

e in

fas

t pr

ojec

t ap

prov

als

SN

A p

rim

arily

act

ing

as a

in-

�fo

rmat

ion

for

war

din

g au

thor

ity

Nil

�N

il �

Mon

itor

ing

No

mon

itor

ing,

as

foss

il fu

el c

on-

�su

mpt

ion

not

allo

wed

No

proc

edu

re in

pla

ce t

o tr

ack

the

�ac

tual

mar

ket

pric

e of

bio

mas

s

The

mon

thly

info

rmat

ion

fro

m

�po

wer

pla

nts

doe

s n

ot c

aptu

re

the

foss

il fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

an

d

the

mar

ket

pric

e of

bio

mas

sN

o pr

oced

ure

to

chec

k th

e �qu

alit

y of

dat

a pr

ovid

ed

The

mon

thly

info

rmat

ion

fro

m

�po

wer

pla

nts

doe

s n

ot c

aptu

re

the

foss

il fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

No

proc

edu

re t

o ch

eck

the

�qu

alit

y of

dat

a pr

ovid

ed

Nil

�

Ince

nti

ves

Gov

ern

men

t la

nd

is p

rovi

ded

at

a �lo

w c

ost,

if a

vaila

ble

RP

O a

t 1%

�

Gov

ern

men

t la

nd

is p

rovi

ded

at

�D

LC

of

10%

RP

O a

t 1.

45%

(m

in)

to 2

.95%

�(m

ax)

Gov

ern

men

t la

nd

pro

vid

ed

�on

leas

e as

per

the

In

du

stri

es

Dep

artm

ent,

Gov

ern

men

t of

C

hhat

tisg

arh

nor

ms

On

ly m

inim

um

RP

O f

rom

�re

new

able

en

ergy

pow

erR

PO

is a

t 5%

for

bio

mas

s �po

wer

On

ly m

inim

um

RP

O f

rom

re-

�n

ewab

le e

ner

gy p

ower

RP

O is

at

5% (

2008

/09)

�


Tabl

e 22

Con

td..

.

54



Ta

ble

22

Con

td..

.A

spec

tP

un

jab

Raj

asth

anC

hhat

tisg

arh

Mah

aras

htra

Tar

iff

Tar

iff

not

det

erm

ined

thr

ough

nor

- �m

al r

egu

lato

ry p

roce

ssC

ost

of p

ower

eva

cuat

ion

to

be b

orn

e �by

the

pro

ject

dev

elop

erE

scal

atio

n o

f va

riab

le c

harg

e co

mpo

- �n

ent,

not

at

par

wit

h m

arke

t pr

ices

Cos

t of

pow

er e

vacu

atio

n t

o be

�bo

rne

by t

he p

roje

ct d

evel

oper

Esc

alat

ion

of

vari

able

cha

rge

�co

mpo

nen

t, n

ot a

t pa

r w

ith

mar

ket

pric

es

Cos

t of

pow

er e

vacu

atio

n t

o be

�bo

rne

by t

he p

roje

ct d

evel

oper

Esc

alat

ion

of

vari

able

cha

rge

�co

mpo

nen

t, n

ot a

t pa

r w

ith

mar

ket

pric

es

Cos

t of

pow

er e

vacu

atio

n t

o be

�bo

rne

by t

he p

roje

ct d

evel

oper

Esc

alat

ion

of

vari

able

cha

rge

�co

mpo

nen

t, n

ot a

t pa

r w

ith

mar

ket

pric

es

Ope

n

acce

ssN

il �

Not

allo

wed

bu

t fo

r co

gen

era-

�ti

on a

llow

edN

ot a

llow

ed b

ut

for

coge

ner

a- �ti

on a

llow

edA

llow

ed f

or p

lan

ts w

hich

hav

e �d

ecla

red

the

ir w

ish

of s

ellin

g po

wer

thr

ough

ope

n a

cces

s in

th

e be

gin

nin

g

Cat

chm

ent

area

Not

defi

ned

in t

erm

s of

spa

tial

dis

- �ta

nce

(km

)N

il �

Not

defi

ned

in t

erm

s of

spa

tial

�d

ista

nce

(km

)N

ot d

efin

ed in

ter

ms

of s

pati

al

�d

ista

nce

(km

)

55


O&M problems y : Plants are facing unplanned shutdown because of non-avail-ability of grid resulting in lower PLF. For example, in Malwa Power Plant, on an average, there are 15 trippings per month on account of unavailability of grid. Plants are also facing problems of bed coil failure. For example, Sudha Agro Ltd is facing the problem of bed coil failure due to erosion of the bed coil.

Project financing �

Non-uniform interest rates and period of loan. For example, Suryachambal ygot loan at 14.25% rate of interest while Sudha Agro received loan at 13% interest rate.Lack of guidelines to financial institutions (FIs) from MNRE/Ministry of Fi- ynance for financing of biomass-based power projects.Large documentary work needs to be done before submission of appli- ycation to FIs leading to delay in financial closure. Usually financial closure takes 5–6 months.

1. DPR 2. Approval letter from SNA 3. PPA 4. Land details 5. Environmental impact assessment report

Sustainable biomass supply linkages �In all the states, there is no organised market of biomass. The biomass is yeither supplied by farmers themselves or by small traders.Lack of awareness among farmers regarding potential revenue generation yby selling surplus biomass to power plants. For example, in many parts in-terior of Rajasthan, surplus mustard residue is burnt in the fields or left to decompose.The biomass market in some states such as Chhattisgarh is being captured yby traders who take a margin of 15%–20%.Export to outside catchment area/increase in consumption of biomass by ylocal industry such as paper, brick kiln, cement, and oil mills leading to price increase of biomass.

3.3 Recommendations

3.3.1 Policy and regulatory aspects

The methodology adopted for arriving at the the recommendations for overcoming the barriers is given below. 1. Identification of the best practices (Table 23) among the four states under study

and suggest the measure undertaken by the state following the best practice for the other states


56



Tab

le 2

3 Id

enti

fica

tion

of ‘

Bes

t P

ract

ice’

Issu

eE

xpla

nat

ion

Pra

ctic

eIm

pact

Cri

teri

a fo

r id

enti

fica

tion

of

‘bes

t pr

acti

ce’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Pro

ject

in

itia

tion

: S

NA

an

d /o

r D

evel

oper

Pro

ject

s in

itia

tion

ei

ther

incl

ud

es S

NA

’s

dec

lara

tion

of

bid

/ ex

pres

sion

of

inte

rest

for

d

evel

opm

ent

of b

iom

ass

pow

er p

lan

t or

dev

elop

er’s

se

lf-i

den

tifi

ed p

ropo

sal

for

the

dev

elop

men

t of

a

biom

ass

plan

t in

a s

ite

of

its

choi

ce

Pu

nja

b:

SN

A o

r D

evel

oper

Raj

asth

an:

Dev

elop

er o

nly

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: D

evel

oper

on

lyM

ahar

ash

tra:

SN

A o

nly

Pu

nja

b:

7.5

MW

in

5 ye

ars

Raj

asth

an:

46.3

M

W in

6 y

ears

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: 16

7.49

MW

in 8

ye

ars

Mah

aras

htr

a: 9

5 M

W in

2 y

ears

The

fas

ter

the

cum

ula

tive

ca

paci

ty

of b

iom

ass

pow

er p

roje

cts

com

mis

sion

ed

Pro

ject

in

itia

tion

by

SN

A

Mah

aras

htra

Sin

gle

win

dow

cl

eara

nce

an

d

Em

pow

ered

C

omm

itte

e fo

r pr

ojec

t ap

prai

sal

Lis

t of

cle

aran

ces:

en

viro

nm

ent,

for

est

lan

d,

pollu

tion

con

trol

, wat

er,

use

of

NR

SE

res

ourc

es,

inve

stm

ent

clea

ran

ceR

ole

of E

mpo

wer

ed

Com

mit

tee:

Con

du

ct

mee

tin

g of

all

orga

nis

atio

ns

invo

lved

in

app

rova

ls t

o fi

x is

sues

an

d m

ater

ialis

e fa

ster

cl

eara

nce

s

Pu

nja

b:

Sin

gle

win

dow

cle

aran

ce a

nd

E

mpo

wer

ed C

omm

itte

e pr

acti

ce p

rese

nt

Raj

asth

an:

Sin

gle

win

dow

cle

aran

ce a

nd

E

mpo

wer

ed C

omm

itte

e pr

acti

ce p

rese

nt

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: S

ingl

e w

ind

ow c

lear

ance

an

d E

mpo

wer

ed C

omm

itte

e pr

acti

ce a

bsen

tM

ahar

ash

tra:

Sin

gle

win

dow

cle

aran

ce

and

Em

pow

ered

Com

mit

tee

prac

tice

abs

ent

Pu

nja

b:

8 m

onth

sR

ajas

than

: 8

mon

ths

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: 8–

9 m

onth

sM

ahar

ash

tra:

7–8

m

onth

s(f

or p

ollu

tion

cl

eara

nce

)

The

fas

ter

the

clea

ran

ces

No

sin

gle

win

dow

cl

eara

nce

an

d

com

mit

tee

for

proj

ect

appr

aisa

l

Mah

aras

htra

an

d

Chh

atti

sgar

h

Dee

med

cl

eara

nce

in

cas

e of

d

elay

fro

m

SN

A/o

ther

ap

prov

ing

orga

nis

atio

n

Dee

med

cle

aran

ce: T

he

auto

mat

ic c

lear

ance

u

nd

erst

ood

to

have

bee

n

gran

ted

, in

cas

e th

ere

is

any

del

ay in

cle

aran

ce

from

any

org

anis

atio

n

beyo

nd

a c

erta

in t

ime

peri

od

Pu

nja

b:

Dee

med

cle

aran

ce g

ran

ted

aft

er

60 d

ays

Raj

asth

an:

No

such

cla

use

in t

he p

olic

yC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

No

such

cla

use

in t

he

polic

yM

ahar

ash

tra:

No

such

cla

use

in t

he p

olic

y

Pu

nja

b:

Pol

luti

on

clea

ran

ce t

akes

8

mon

ths

agai

nst

60

day

s, a

s pe

r po

licy

for

dee

med

cle

aran

ce

(NO

IM

PAC

T)

Raj

asth

an:

Not

ap

plic

able

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: N

ot

appl

icab

leM

ahar

ash

tra:

Not

ap

plic

able

The

act

ual

ti

me

take

n

in p

roje

cts

whe

re d

eem

ed

clea

ran

ce

is c

lose

to

the

tim

e m

enti

oned

in

the

sta

te

polic

y

No

dee

med

cl

eara

nce

Mah

aras

htra

, C

hhat

tisg

arh,

an

d R

ajas

than

Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

57


Ta

ble

23

Con

td..

.Is

sue

Exp

lan

atio

nP

ract

ice

Impa

ctC

rite

ria

for

iden

tifi

cati

on

of ‘b

est

prac

tice

’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Fin

al c

rite

ria

for

sele

ctio

n

of p

arty

Whe

n S

NA

init

iate

s pr

ojec

t id

enti

fica

tion

(P

un

jab

and

M

ahar

asht

ra),

the

bi

ds/

resp

onse

to

its

adve

rtis

emen

t is

sc

ruti

nis

ed b

ased

on

ce

rtai

n c

rite

ria.

If

mor

e th

an o

ne

part

y ar

e at

par

w

hile

con

sid

erin

g th

ose

crit

eria

, the

SN

A h

as t

o fi

x ce

rtai

n fi

nal

cri

teri

a fo

r th

e se

lect

ion

of

a pa

rty

Pu

nja

b:

En

ergy

allo

cati

on in

kin

d t

o S

NA

Raj

asth

an:

Not

app

licab

le, a

s pr

ojec

t id

enti

fica

tion

is d

one

by t

he d

evel

oper

an

d

hen

ce n

o co

mpe

titi

onC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

Not

app

licab

le, a

s pr

ojec

t id

enti

fica

tion

is d

one

by t

he d

evel

oper

an

d

hen

ce n

o co

mpe

titi

onM

ahar

ash

tra:

Fir

st-c

ome

firs

t-se

rved

bas

is

Pu

nja

b:

3 pr

ojec

ts

rece

ntl

y w

on b

y a

firm

hav

e qu

oted

10

% o

f en

ergy

al

loca

tion

Raj

asth

an:

Not

ap

plic

able

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: N

ot

appl

icab

leM

ahar

ash

tra:

No

fin

anci

al b

urd

en

A c

rite

ria

shou

ld n

ot

beco

me

a bu

rden

to

the

dev

elop

er

Sel

ecti

on b

ased

on

firs

t-co

me

firs

t-se

rved

ba

sis

Mah

aras

htra

Who

bea

rs

the

cost

of

a po

wer

ev

acu

atio

n

syst

em

The

cos

t of

pow

er

evac

uat

ion

sys

tem

is e

ithe

r bo

rne

by t

he d

evel

oper

or

fun

ded

thr

ough

the

SN

A

Pu

nja

b:

100%

by

the

dev

elop

erR

ajas

than

: 10

0% b

y th

e d

evel

oper

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: 10

0% b

y th

e d

evel

oper

Mah

aras

htr

a: 5

0% r

efu

nd

thr

ough

the

S

NA

(10

0% r

efu

nd

of

the

cost

of

pow

er

evac

uat

ion

is p

ropo

sed

in t

he la

test

rev

isio

n

of t

he p

olic

y)

Pu

nja

b:

Dev

elop

ers

are

dem

and

ing

for

fin

anci

al a

ssis

tan

ceR

ajas

than

: D

evel

oper

s ar

e d

eman

din

g fo

r fi

nan

cial

ass

ista

nce

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: D

evel

oper

s ar

e d

eman

din

g fo

r fi

nan

cial

ass

ista

nce

Mah

aras

htr

a:

Dev

elop

ers

are

happ

y w

ith

the

init

iati

ve

Res

pon

se

from

d

evel

oper

s

50%

ref

un

d

thro

ugh

the

S

NA

(10

0%

refu

nd

of

the

cost

of

pow

er

evac

uat

ion

is

prop

osed

in t

he

late

st r

evis

ion

of

polic

y)

Mah

aras

htra


Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

58


UNDP/GEF-Biomass Power Project T

ab

le 2

3 C

ontd

...

Issu

eE

xpla

nat

ion

Pra

ctic

eIm

pact

Cri

teri

a fo

r id

enti

fica

tion

of

‘bes

t pr

acti

ce’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

En

sure

fa

ster

pro

ject

d

evel

opm

ent

afte

r al

lotm

ent

Aft

er a

llotm

ent

of

proj

ects

to

dev

elop

ers,

the

ex

ecu

tion

of

som

e pr

ojec

ts

get

del

ayed

du

e to

var

iou

s re

ason

s. S

NA

’s p

ract

ice

in

ensu

rin

g fa

ster

exe

cuti

on

of p

roje

cts

is a

n is

sue.

Pu

nja

b:

No

clar

ity

Raj

asth

an: T

ime

of 2

0–28

mon

ths

from

th

e d

ate

of p

roje

ct a

ppro

val i

s gi

ven

an

d R

s 0.

5 la

kh p

er M

W, R

s 1

lakh

per

MW

, Rs

2 la

kh p

er M

W, a

nd

Rs

5 la

kh p

er M

W f

or

exte

nsi

ons

of 1

mon

th, 2

mon

ths,

3 m

onth

s,

and

mor

e th

an 3

mon

ths

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: O

ne

year

tim

e fo

r ex

ecu

tion

an

d f

urt

her

exte

nsi

ons

for

gen

uin

e re

ason

s,

othe

rwis

e al

lotm

ent

is c

ance

lled

Mah

aras

htr

a: R

efu

nd

able

com

mit

men

t fe

e of

Rs

5 la

kh p

er M

W is

col

lect

ed f

rom

th

e d

evel

oper

, whi

ch is

rel

ease

d u

pon

pr

oof

of o

rder

s pl

aced

on

the

equ

ipm

ent

supp

liers

. Als

o 6

mon

ths

is p

rovi

ded

for

ge

ttin

g cl

eara

nce

, ext

end

able

for

gen

uin

e re

ason

s an

d a

fin

al d

ead

line

of 2

yea

rs f

rom

al

lotm

ent,

fai

ling

whi

ch t

he p

roje

ct g

ets

can

celle

d

Pu

nja

b:

7.5

MW

in

5 ye

ars

Raj

asth

an:

46.3

M

W in

6 y

ears

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: 16

7.49

MW

in 8

ye

ars

Mah

aras

htr

a: 9

5 M

W in

2 y

ear

Fas

ter

dev

elop

men

t of

cu

mu

lati

ve

capa

city

of

pro

ject

s (M

W)

in t

he

stat

e

Ref

un

dab

le

com

mit

men

t fe

e of

Rs

5 la

kh

per

MW

is

colle

cted

fro

m

the

dev

elop

er,

whi

ch is

re

leas

ed u

pon

pr

oof

of o

rder

s pl

aced

on

the

eq

uip

men

t su

pplie

rs.

Als

o 6

mon

ths

is p

rovi

ded

fo

r ge

ttin

g cl

eara

nce

, ex

ten

dab

le

for

gen

uin

e re

ason

s an

d a

fi

nal

dea

dlin

e of

2 y

ears

fro

m

allo

tmen

t,

faili

ng

whi

ch

the

proj

ect

gets

ca

nce

lled

Mah

aras

htra

Con

sum

ptio

n

of f

ossi

l fu

elT

he b

iom

ass

pow

er

plan

ts a

re a

llow

ed t

o u

se f

ossi

l fu

el f

or u

sage

, bu

t w

ith

a ca

p on

the

an

nu

al c

onsu

mpt

ion

, as

per

guid

elin

es o

f M

NR

E

(15%

) or

tho

se o

f th

e S

NA

/SE

RC

Pu

nja

b:

Usa

ge o

f fo

ssil

fuel

not

allo

wed

by

the

SE

RC

Raj

asth

an:

An

an

nu

al c

ap o

f 15

% fi

xed

by

the

SN

A in

lin

e w

ith

MN

RE

gu

idel

ines

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: A

n a

nn

ual

cap

of

15%

or

25%

, dep

end

ing

upo

n t

he c

hoic

e of

the

d

evel

oper

du

rin

g pr

ojec

t al

lotm

ent

Mah

aras

htr

a: A

n a

nn

ual

cap

of

15%

, fi

xed

by

the

SN

A in

lin

e w

ith

MN

RE

gu

idel

ines

Pu

nja

b:

Act

ual

co

nsu

mpt

ion

fro

m

plan

t vi

sits

- 0

%R

ajas

than

: A

ctu

al

con

sum

ptio

n f

rom

pl

ant

visi

ts -

0%

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: A

ctu

al c

onsu

mpt

ion

fr

om p

lan

ts v

isit

s -

20%

–22%

M

ahar

ash

tra:

A

ctu

al c

onsu

mpt

ion

fr

om p

lan

ts v

isit

s –

13%

–15%

The

act

ual

co

nsu

mpt

ion

fi

gure

s fr

om

plan

t vi

sits

ar

e w

ithi

n t

he

upp

er li

mit

sp

ecifi

ed b

y th

e S

NA

/S

ER

C

As

this

is a

st

ate-

spec

ific

issu

e an

d t

he

actu

al p

lan

ts

are

clos

e to

an

d w

ithi

n

the

spec

ified

lim

its,

all

the

fou

r st

ates

are

ha

vin

g be

st

prac

tice

All

fou

r st

ates

Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

59


Ta

ble

23

Con

td..

.Is

sue

Exp

lan

atio

nP

ract

ice

Impa

ctC

rite

ria

for

iden

tifi

cati

on

of ‘b

est

prac

tice

’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Mon

itor

ing

foss

il fu

el

con

sum

ptio

n

and

RP

O

com

plia

nce

The

mon

itor

ing

of a

ctu

al

foss

il fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

, d

eliv

ered

cos

t of

fu

el a

t a

plan

t le

vel i

n e

ach

stat

e,

and

col

lati

on o

f fi

gure

s on

ac

tual

pow

er g

ener

atio

n

for

RP

O c

ompl

ian

ce a

t a

stat

e le

vel

Pu

nja

b:

Upp

er li

mit

on

an

nu

al f

ossi

l fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

is 0

%, a

s P

SE

RC

has

n

ot a

llow

ed; P

ED

A d

oes

not

col

lect

any

in

form

atio

n f

rom

pla

nt

own

ers

Raj

asth

an:

Upp

er li

mit

on

an

nu

al f

ossi

l fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

is 1

5%, a

s pe

r M

NR

E;

RR

EC

has

a f

orm

at f

or m

onth

ly d

ata

colle

ctio

n, b

ut

resp

onse

fro

m p

lan

ts is

poo

r an

d n

o pr

acti

ce t

o ch

eck

the

qual

ity

of d

ata

prov

ided

. The

for

mat

for

dat

a co

llect

ion

co

vers

typ

es o

f bi

omas

s u

sed

, cu

mu

lati

ve

pow

er g

ener

atio

n t

hat

can

su

ppor

t m

onit

orin

g of

RP

O c

ompl

ian

ce, b

ut

not

fo

ssil

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n a

nd

del

iver

ed c

ost

of f

uel

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: O

ptio

n g

iven

to

plan

t ow

ner

to

choo

se u

pper

lim

it o

n a

nn

ual

fo

ssil

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n b

etw

een

15%

an

d

25%

; CR

ED

A h

as a

for

mat

for

mon

thly

d

ata

colle

ctio

n, b

ut

resp

onse

fro

m p

lan

ts is

po

or a

nd

no

prac

tice

to

chec

k th

e qu

alit

y of

dat

a pr

ovid

ed. T

he f

orm

at f

or d

ata

colle

ctio

n c

over

s fo

ssil

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n,

del

iver

ed c

ost

and

cu

mu

lati

ve p

ower

ge

ner

atio

n t

hat

can

su

ppor

t m

onit

orin

g of

R

PO

com

plia

nce

Mah

aras

htr

a: U

pper

lim

it o

n a

nn

ual

fos

sil

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n is

15%

, as

per

MN

RE

; M

ED

A h

as 4

for

mat

s fo

r m

onth

ly d

ata

colle

ctio

n, b

ut

resp

onse

fro

m p

lan

ts is

poo

r an

d t

wo-

leve

l exe

rcis

es t

o ch

eck

the

qual

ity

of d

ata

prov

ided

. The

for

mat

s co

ver

the

quan

titi

es a

nd

cos

t (i

ncl

ud

ing

brea

k-u

p)

to h

elp

mon

itor

fos

sil f

uel

con

sum

ptio

n,

cost

at

a pl

ant

leve

l an

d c

um

ula

tive

pow

er

gen

erat

ion

to

supp

ort

mon

itor

ing

of R

PO

co

mpl

ian

ceR

ajas

than

: D

ata

from

pla

nt

visi

ts s

how

th

at f

ossi

l fu

el u

sage

is 0

%

Pu

nja

b:

Dat

a fr

om

plan

t vi

sits

sho

w t

hat

foss

il fu

el u

sage

is

0% Raj

asth

an:

Dat

a fr

om p

lan

t vi

sits

sh

ow t

hat

foss

il fu

el

usa

ge is

0%

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: D

ata

from

pla

nt

visi

ts

show

tha

t fo

ssil

fuel

u

sage

is 2

0%–2

2%M

ahar

ash

tra:

Dat

a fr

om p

lan

t vi

sits

sh

ow t

hat

foss

il fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

is

13%

–15%

. RP

S

com

plia

nce

in

2007

/08

was

2.9

8%

as a

gain

st t

he t

arge

t of

4%

The

dep

th o

f in

form

atio

n

sou

ght

from

th

e po

wer

pl

ant

own

ers

to c

over

pe

rcen

tage

of

fos

sil f

uel

co

nsu

mpt

ion

(t

o ch

eck

com

plia

nce

of

cap

on

fo

ssil

fuel

co

nsu

mpt

ion

),

del

iver

ed

cost

of

fuel

(t

o su

ppor

t d

ata

requ

ired

d

uri

ng

fixa

tion

of

var

iabl

e S

ER

C),

cu

mu

lati

xve

pow

er

gen

erat

ion

(t

o su

ppor

t m

onit

orin

g of

RP

O

com

plia

nce

) an

d q

ual

ity

chec

k

The

for

mat

fo

llow

ed b

y M

ED

A c

over

s th

e qu

anti

ties

an

d c

ost

(in

clu

din

g br

eak-

up)

to

help

mon

itor

fo

ssil

fuel

co

nsu

mpt

ion

, co

st a

t a

plan

t le

vel a

nd

RP

O

com

plia

nce

at

a st

ate

leve

l

Mah

aras

htra


Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

60


UNDP/GEF-Biomass Power Project T

ab

le 2

3 C

ontd

...

Issu

eE

xpla

nat

ion

Pra

ctic

eIm

pact

Cri

teri

a fo

r id

enti

fica

tion

of

‘bes

t pr

acti

ce’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

An

nu

al

esca

lati

on o

f va

riab

le p

art

tari

ff

The

sta

tes

in w

hich

tw

o-pa

rt t

arif

f is

men

tion

ed,

the

vari

able

cha

rge

is

ann

ual

ly e

scal

ated

at

som

e pe

rcen

tage

Pu

nja

b:

5% o

n t

otal

tar

iff

Raj

asth

an:

5% o

n v

aria

ble

tari

ffC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

5% o

n v

aria

ble

tari

ffM

ahar

ash

tra:

5%

on

var

iabl

e ta

riff

Fie

ld v

isit

s sh

ow t

he

follo

win

g pr

ices

of

biom

ass

Pu

nja

b:

Not

av

aila

ble

Raj

asth

an (

Rs/

T):

85

0 (2

006/

07),

170

0 (2

007/

08),

an

d 1

925

(200

8/09

); C

AG

R

50%

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: (R

s/T

) 12

00

(200

6/07

), 1

400

(200

7/08

), a

nd

230

0 (2

008/

09);

CA

GR

38

.44%

Mah

aras

htr

a: N

ot

avai

labl

e

The

an

nu

al

esca

lati

on o

f va

riab

le p

art

tari

ff is

clo

se

to t

he a

ctu

al

fuel

pri

ce

esca

lati

on

No

best

pr

acti

ce_

Bio

mas

s fu

el p

rice

co

nsi

der

ed

for

tari

ff

det

erm

inat

ion

Cer

tain

pri

ce o

f bi

omas

s fo

r ta

riff

det

erm

inat

ion

ha

s to

be

use

d f

or t

arif

f d

eter

min

atio

n f

ollo

wed

by

SE

RC

Pu

nja

b:

Not

spe

cifi

ed, a

s th

e ta

riff

was

not

d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e S

ER

CR

ajas

than

: R

s 12

16/T

lead

ing

to a

var

iabl

e co

mpo

nen

t of

Rs

1.69

/kW

h (2

009/

10)

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: R

s 11

38.9

3/T

lead

ing

to

Rs

1.46

/kW

h (7

5:25

) an

d R

s 10

96.9

9/T

le

adin

g to

Rs

1.40

/kW

h (8

5:15

) (2

009/

10)

Mah

aras

htr

a: R

s 20

45/T

lead

ing

to R

s 2.

58/k

Wh

(200

9/10

)R

ajas

than

: R

s 19

25/T

at

site

Pu

nja

b:

Not

ap

plic

able

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: R

s 22

00/T

at

site

(7

5:25

)M

ahar

ash

tra:

Rs

2475

/T a

t si

te

The

pri

ce

of b

iom

ass

con

sid

ered

fo

r ta

riff

d

eter

min

atio

n

is c

lose

to

aver

age

of

actu

al in

pl

ants

No

best

pr

acti

ce–

GC

V o

f bi

omas

s co

nsi

der

ed

for

tari

ff

det

erm

inat

ion

Cer

tain

cal

orifi

c va

lue

of b

iom

ass

for

tari

ff

det

erm

inat

ion

has

to

be

use

d f

or t

arif

f d

eter

min

atio

n f

ollo

wed

by

SE

RC

Pu

nja

b:

Not

spe

cifi

ed, a

s th

e ta

riff

was

not

d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e S

ER

CR

ajas

than

: 34

00 k

cal/k

gC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

3300

kca

l/kg

Mah

aras

htr

a: N

ot a

vaila

ble

as p

rese

nt

ord

er is

inte

rim

tar

iff,

whi

ch d

id n

ot

un

der

go t

he r

egu

lar

regu

lato

ry p

roce

ss

Pu

nja

b:

Not

A

pplic

able

Raj

asth

an:

3093

kC

al/k

gC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

2960

to

3221

kC

al/

kg(7

5:25

)M

ahar

ash

tra:

306

9 to

362

4 kC

al/k

g

The

GC

V

of b

iom

ass

con

sid

ered

fo

r ta

riff

d

eter

min

atio

n

is c

lose

to

aver

age

of

actu

al in

pl

ants

No

best

pr

acti

ce–

Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

61


Ta

ble

23

Con

td..

.Is

sue

Exp

lan

atio

nP

ract

ice

Impa

ctC

rite

ria

for

iden

tifi

cati

on

of ‘b

est

prac

tice

’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Ren

ewab

le

purc

hase

ob

ligat

ion

(R

PO

)

RP

O/S

peci

fica

tion

(R

PO

/R

PS

) is

the

obl

igat

ion

le

vied

on

the

loca

l d

istr

ibu

tion

lice

nse

e to

pu

rcha

se s

ome

perc

enta

ge

of it

s an

nu

al e

ner

gy

purc

hase

fro

m r

enew

able

so

urc

es

Pu

nja

b: T

he r

egu

lati

on d

efin

es t

he

perc

enta

ges

for

5 ye

ars,

i.e.

min

imu

m

perc

enta

ge f

rom

RE

sou

rces

is 2

%

(200

9/10

)R

ajas

than

: The

reg

ula

tion

defi

nes

the

pe

rcen

tage

s fo

r 6

year

s, i.

e. m

inim

um

pe

rcen

tage

fro

m b

iom

ass

pow

er is

1.4

5%

(200

9/10

) fo

r co

nsu

mpt

ion

pu

rpos

e an

d

max

imu

m is

2.9

5% (

2009

/10)

(w

itho

ut

pen

al c

lau

se)

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: The

reg

ula

tion

defi

nes

th

e pe

rcen

tage

s fo

r 3

year

s, i.

e. m

inim

um

pe

rcen

tage

fro

m b

iom

ass

pow

er is

5%

(2

009/

10)

Mah

aras

htr

a: T

he r

egu

lati

on d

efin

es

the

perc

enta

ges

for

4 ye

ars,

i.e.

min

imu

m

perc

enta

ge f

rom

RE

sou

rces

is 6

%

(200

9/10

)

Pu

nja

b:

7.5

MW

in

5 ye

ars

Raj

asth

an:

46.3

M

W in

6 y

ears

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: 16

7.49

MW

in 8

ye

ars

Mah

aras

htr

a: 9

5 M

W in

2 y

ears

; R

PS

com

plia

nce

in

2007

/08

was

2.9

8%

as a

gain

st t

he t

arge

t of

4%

The

hig

her

the

cum

ula

tive

bi

omas

s po

wer

in t

he

stat

e an

d t

he

mec

han

ism

of

RP

O/R

PS

co

mpl

ian

ce is

in

pla

ce

RP

O d

ecla

red

fo

r m

ore

than

5

year

s al

ong

wit

h m

inim

um

(fo

r co

nsu

mpt

ion

pu

rpos

e) a

nd

m

axim

um

(fo

r co

ntr

acti

ng

purp

ose)

Mah

aras

htra


Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

62



Ta

ble

23

Con

td..

.Is

sue

Exp

lan

atio

nP

ract

ice

Impa

ctC

rite

ria

for

iden

tifi

cati

on

of ‘b

est

prac

tice

’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Allo

wan

ce o

f op

en a

cces

sO

pen

acc

ess

is a

rou

te

thro

ugh

whi

ch, i

f al

low

ed,

a po

wer

pla

nt

own

er c

an

sell

pow

er t

o an

y pa

rty

othe

r th

an t

he lo

cal

dis

trib

uti

on li

cen

see

afte

r pa

yin

g so

me

char

ges

to

the

loca

l dis

trib

uti

on

licen

see

Pu

nja

b: T

he d

evel

oper

is a

llow

ed in

ter-

stat

e op

en a

cces

s vi

de

stat

e n

otifi

cati

on

dat

ed 1

1 Ju

ne

2009

Raj

asth

an:

Not

allo

wed

, bu

t if

the

d

evel

oper

is n

ot h

appy

wit

h th

e ta

riff

, the

d

evel

oper

can

app

roac

h th

e S

ER

C f

or

revi

sion

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: N

ot a

llow

edM

ahar

ash

tra:

If

the

dev

elop

er w

ants

ope

n

acce

ss a

nd

fin

anci

al a

ssis

tan

ce f

or p

ower

ev

acu

atio

n, h

e is

allo

wed

to

sell

pow

er

thro

ugh

ope

n a

cces

s, b

ut

wit

hin

the

sta

te.

If t

he d

evel

oper

wan

ts o

pen

acc

ess

wit

hou

t fi

nan

cial

ass

ista

nce

for

pow

er e

vacu

atio

n,

he is

allo

wed

to

sell

pow

er t

hrou

gh o

pen

ac

cess

eve

n b

eyon

d t

he s

tate

bou

nd

ary.

All

dec

isio

ns

to b

e ta

ken

bef

ore

PPA

is s

ign

ed

and

in t

he b

egin

nin

g

Pu

nja

b: T

oo e

arly

to

fin

d a

n im

pact

Raj

asth

an:

An

xiet

y am

ong

plan

t ow

ner

s to

sel

l pow

er t

hrou

gh

open

acc

ess

and

get

be

tter

tar

iff

Ch

hat

tisg

arh

: A

nxi

ety

amon

g pl

ant

own

ers

to s

ell p

ower

th

rou

gh o

pen

acc

ess

and

get

bet

ter

tari

ffM

ahar

ash

tra:

D

evel

oper

s ar

e ha

ppy

wit

h th

e n

ew c

han

ge

The

opt

ion

for

m

ode

of s

ale

of p

ower

is le

ft

open

to

the

pow

er p

roje

ct

dev

elop

er

If t

he d

evel

oper

w

ants

ope

n

acce

ss a

nd

fi

nan

cial

as

sist

ance

fo

r po

wer

ev

acu

atio

n,

he is

allo

wed

to

sel

l pow

er

thro

ugh

ope

n

acce

ss, b

ut

wit

hin

the

sta

te.

If t

he d

evel

oper

w

ants

ope

n

acce

ss w

itho

ut

fin

anci

al

assi

stan

ce

for

pow

er

evac

uat

ion

, he

is a

llow

ed

to s

ell p

ower

th

rou

gh o

pen

ac

cess

eve

n

beyo

nd

the

st

ate

bou

nd

ary.

A

ll d

ecis

ion

s to

be

tak

en b

efor

e P

PA is

sig

ned

an

d in

the

be

gin

nin

g

Mah

aras

htra

Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

63


Ta

ble

23

Con

td..

.Is

sue

Exp

lan

atio

nP

ract

ice

Impa

ctC

rite

ria

for

iden

tifi

cati

on

of ‘b

est

prac

tice

’

Bes

t pr

acti

ceF

ollo

wed

in

the

stat

e of

Cat

chm

ent

area

The

rad

ial d

ista

nce

ar

oun

d t

he p

lan

t w

ithi

n

whi

ch t

he b

iom

ass

is t

o be

co

llect

ed a

s fu

el

Pu

nja

b: T

alu

ka li

mit

s (d

ista

nce

not

cle

arly

d

efin

ed)

Raj

asth

an:

Cle

arly

defi

ned

as

40 k

mC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

Not

cle

arly

defi

ned

Mah

aras

htr

a: D

istr

ict

bou

nd

ary

(dis

tan

ce

not

cle

arly

defi

ned

)

Pu

nja

b:

No

prob

lem

on

bio

mas

s av

aila

bilit

y, b

ut

the

upp

er li

mit

fro

m

econ

omic

an

alys

is is

40

km

Raj

asth

an:

No

prob

lem

on

bio

mas

s av

aila

bilit

yC

hh

atti

sgar

h:

No

prob

lem

on

bio

mas

s av

aila

bilit

y, b

ut

the

upp

er li

mit

fro

m

econ

omic

an

alys

is is

40

km

Mah

aras

htr

a: N

o pr

oble

m o

n b

iom

ass

avai

labi

lity,

bu

t th

e u

pper

lim

it f

rom

ec

onom

ic a

nal

ysis

is

40 k

m

Whe

ther

ca

tchm

ent

area

is c

lear

ly

defi

ned

an

d

un

der

the

ec

onom

ical

lim

itat

ion

s

Cat

chm

ent

area

is c

lear

ly

defi

ned

as

40

km

Raj

asth

an


Tabl

e 23

Con

td..

.

64



2. For the issues unaddressed by the best practices, recommendations have been given based on DSCLES’s analysis and conclusions from the present study

The recommendations on policy and regulatory aspects are provided in Table 24.

Table 24 Recommendations on policy and regulatory aspectsAspect Punjab Rajasthan Chhattisgarh Maharashtra

Project allocation/ approval

Selection of the �

bidder can be

done based on

first-come first-

served basis

RREC should �

prepare tehsil/

district level bio-

mass availability

plan and biomass

power potential

RREC should �

call for tenders

for particular

tehsils for fixed

catchment ar-

eas in a planned

manner

CREDA should �

prepare tehsil/

district level bio-

mass availability

plan and biomass

power potential

CREDA should �

call for tenders

for particular

tehsils for fixed

catchment in a

planned manner

Nil �

Statutory approvals and clearances

Remove sin- �

gle window

clearance and

Empowered

Committee

Remove sin- �

gle window

clearance and

Empowered

Committee

Nil � Nil �

Monitoring Monthly in- �

formation to

capture fossil

fuel consump-

tion, market

price of biomass,

and RPO as

in the case of

Maharashtra

Third-party �

survey to esti-

mate the market

price of biomass

– MNRE/SNA

Monthly in- �

formation to

capture fossil fuel

usage, market

price of biomass,

and RPO as

in the case of

Maharashtra

Third-party �

survey to esti-

mate the market

price of biomass

– MNRE/SNA

Monthly in- �

formation to

capture fossil fuel

usage, market

price of biomass,

and RPO as

in the case of

Maharashtra

Third-party �

survey to esti-

mate the market

price of biomass

– MNRE/SNA

Nil �

65


Table 24 Recommendations on policy and regulatory aspectsAspect Punjab Rajasthan Chhattisgarh Maharashtra

Incentives Higher RPO �

Power evacuation �

cost should not

be borne by the

developer

Power evacuation �

cost should not

be borne by the

developer

Higher RPO � Higher RPO �

Tariff Third-party sur- �

vey to estimate

the market price

of biomass, track

annual growth

in price, and

GCV of biomass

– MNRE/SNA

Third-party sur- �

vey to estimate

the market price

of biomass, track

annual growth

in price, and

GCV of biomass

– MNRE/SNA


vey to estimate

the market price

of biomass, track

annual growth

in price, and

GCV of biomass

– MNRE/SNA


vey to estimate

the market price

of biomass, track

annual growth

in price, and

GCV of biomass

– MNRE/SNA

Open access

Nil � Open access �

should be pro-

vided in line with

Maharashtra

Open access �

should be pro-

vided in line with

Maharashtra

Nil �

Catchment area

Norms on �

catchment area

to be defined

clearly (not more

than 40 km)

Already defined �

(40 km catch-

ment area)

Norms on �

catchment area

to be defined

clearly (not more

than 40 km)

Norms on �

catchment area

to be defined

clearly (not more

than 40 km)

3.3.2 Technical (projects/products) deliverables

For achieving high PLF and cycle efficiency, it is necessary to select proper steam temperature and combustion technology for a particular biomass. Table 25 depicts the optimal steam temperature and the best combustion technology for different types of biomass.

In order to achieve high energy and operational efficiencies, technologically ad-vanced and experienced OEMs should be selected for supply of power island and balance of plant. Table 26 shows the list of technologically experienced OEM.

Fuel handling and feeding is an important area in the operation of biomass-based power plants. To achieve smooth operation of fuel handling and feeding system, experienced OEMs and appropriate fuel handling and feeding system should be selected for particular biomass. Table 27 shows the list of experienced OEM for fuel handling system.


66



Table 25 Optimal steam temperature and the best combustion technology for different types of biomassS. No. Biomass Optimal Steam

Temperature (Deg C) Best Combustion Technology

1 Mustard Residue 460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

2 Paddy Straw 450 - 460 Travelling Grate

3 Rice husk 495 - 500 AFBC

4 Cotton Residue 460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

5 Soyabean Residue 460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

6 Ground Nut Residue 460 - 470 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler

7 Bagasse 500 - 540 Travelling Grate

8 Wood Chips 500 - 540 AFBC

Table 26 Technologically experienced OEMsS. No. Equipment Experienced Vender

1 Bottom Hopper AFBC Boiler Thermax

2 AFBC Thermac/IJT/Cethar Vessels

3 Travelling Grate Thermac/IJT/Cethar Vessels

4 TG Set Siemens/Triveni/Shin Nippon

5 ESP Thermac/IJT/Alstom

Table 27 Experienced OEMs for fuel handling systemS. No. Name of OEM

1 Kwality Engineers Ltd

2 Bevcon Wayors Inc.

3 Concept Engineers

4 Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd

5 Enviro Abrasion Ltd

In order to reduce plant stoppage due to grid trippings, plants should transmit power at higher voltage (at 132 kV and above) to the grid as at this voltage, there is almost nil grid tripping. To reduce boiler tube failure, thicker tubes (up to 8 mm) and protective caps can be used at bends and corners.

3.3.3 Project financing

For a biomass project to be financially attractive, the terms of debt need to be well defined so that the profitability of biomass-based power plants can be maintained for a longer term. Also, proper guidelines need to be issued to the FIs from MNRE/Ministry of Finance for financing of biomass-based power projects. For example, there has to be guidelines on the following aspects of financing:

67


Interest rate �Total term loan period �Moratorium period �Capital cost of project per megawatt �Soft costs to be considered �Processing time of loan �

There is also a need for fast financial closure of biomass-based projects. Usually it takes as long as six to eight months for financial closure. MNRE/Ministry of Finance can issue guidelines to banks/FIs to financially close biomass projects in a stipulated time period.

A certain percentage of the total loan amount sanctioned for the complete financial year should be allocated for biomass-based projects.

3.3.4 Sustainable biomass supply linkages

Covered in detail under the follow-on action agenda developed during delibera-tions of meeting of 5 June 2009.


68



69


Issues and Challenges

final report on review of performance of the grid ...biomasspower.gov.in/document/reports/report on...

Documents