Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power

generation in Malaysia
S.M. Shafie a, *, T.M.I. Mahlia a, b, H.H. Masjuki a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the economic feasibility of rice straw co-firing at coal power plants in Malaysia
Received 11 June 2012 and in doing so looks at the operating, capital, and logistic costs. Co-firing rice straw in an existing coal
Received in revised form power plant is a technique that could reduce CO2 emissions and make Malaysia less dependency on coal
25 May 2013
resources. In a country such as Malaysia with abundant biomass resources, utilizing biomass residue also
Accepted 3 June 2013
Available online 29 June 2013
would help reach government targets of developing renewable energy under the country’s Fuel Diver-
sification Policy. The overall rice straw life cycle assessment presented here analyses environmental,
energy and economic aspects for co-firing of rice straw at existing coal power plants in Malaysia. Analysis
Keywords:
Co-firing
of GHG emissions and energy consumption throughout the entire co-firing rice straw life cycle was based
Rice straw on selected coal power plant capacity output. This paper also analyses the implication of rice straw use
Power generation under different co-fired ratios, transportation systems and CO2 emission prices. The reduction of GHG
Life cycle assessment emissions was found to be significant even at a lower co-firing ratio.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [6]. Table 1 lists the current rice straw disposal management across
the world.
As worldwide population numbers increase, industrializing China and California already utilize the rice straw as the
economics will need to diversify energy sources turning to those resource for heat and power production. In China various projects
that are sustainable. Among potential sustainable sources, biomass in Jiangsu Province have typical size 12e25 MW electrical capacity
resources are possible the world’s largest and most sustainable, per power plant with 50%e60% of rice straw as a fuel [7].
comprising approximately 220 billion oven e dry tones of annual The major challenges that are facing with rice straw are
primary production [1]. Annual world rice production in 2011 are economical, technological and organization issues. In California, the
721.4 MT, and 90.48% are from Asian country [2]. This production researcher focus on economic study on utilizing leached rice straw
will create 973.89 MT of rice straw in the fields [3]. Only 20% of as fuel for existing biomass boilers [8].
world rice straw production are purposely use and remaining is still
not fully utilized [4]. 1.2. Technology conversion for rice straw energy production

1.1. Development of rice straw disposal management Based on commercial application, direct combustion and
thermo chemical conversion are the most promising technology for
About 80% of rice straw in the world is applying improper rice straw heat and power generation [9]. Typically, direct com-
disposal management that causes the source of pollution. Rice bustion can be group into the fixed bed and fluidized bed com-
straw is rarely used as sources of renewable energy [5] and open bustion systems [10]. Study by Ref. [11], show that leached rice
burning is common practice apply in majority of Asian countries straw can result in significant improvement of elemental compo-
sition and ash fusibility on fluidized bed combustion characteris-
tics. The problem occur in fluidized bed combustor fuel by rice
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ60 17 499 4562. straw blend due to aggregation issue is reported the results of a
E-mail address: shafi[email protected] (S.M. Shafie). detailed chemical and petrography study [12,13].

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.002
 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294 285

Nomenclature HA harvested area (ha)

HHVCOAL high heating value of coal (MJ/KG)
A activity level HHVRS high heating value of rice straw (MJ/KG)
AS area served (km2) sC collection efficiency
ADPP->CC average distance from paddy plantation to collection NPHRCOAL net plant heat rate of coal (MJ/kWh)
centre NPHRRS, ALONE net plant heat rate of rice straw alone (MJ/kWh)
ADCC->MP average distance from collection centre to power plant PP paddy production (ton)
ASP average rice straw production (ton) PCRS purchased rice straw cost (RM/Year)
ASY average straw yield (ton/ha) QELEC electricity generated (kWh)
Cm.w molecular weight of carbon QELEC, CALONE electricity generated by coal alone (kWh)
CC capital cost (RM) QRS, ALONE electricity generated by burning rice straw alone
CCOAL national average cost of coal (RM/KG) (kWh)
CGHG emission price of equivalent carbon dioxide (RM) RS-C rice straw collection
Ci carbon content fraction of diesel (mass C/mass diesel) S source category
CRS rice straw co-firing cost (RM/KG) SY straw yield (ton/km2)
CTP transport personnel cost (RM) SCTP specific cost for vehicle transport (RM/KM)
CTV transport vehicle cost (RM) SGR straw to grain ratio
CO2,m.w molecular weight of CO2 TCRS transportation rice straw cost (RM)
CO2, T CO2 emission from tractor TCTL total consumption hour trip of lorry (hour)
D volume of diesel combusted (l) TCTT total consumption hour trip of truck (hour)
DD density of diesel (kg/l) TCC->ECPP transportation from collection centre to existing coal
DT travel distance (KM) power plant
EP emission pollutant (CH4 or N2O) TPP->CC transportation from paddy production to collection
EGHG, CO GHG emission during co-firing (KG) centre
EGHG, COALONE GHG emission during coal burn alone (KG) WCOAL, ALONE weight of coal burn alone (KG)
EF emission factor WCOAL, CO weight of coal used in co-firing (KG)
EFCO2 emission factor of carbon dioxide WRS, ALONE weight of rice straw burn alone (KG)
FA availability factor WRS, CO weight of rice straw used in co-firing (KG)
FC fuel combustion (L) VCLORRY capacity of lorry (KG/lorry)
FF farmland factor VCTRUCK capacity of truck (KG/lorry)
FOi fraction oxidized of diesel

1.3. Co-firing of rice straw worldwide most of these plants are located in Finland, USA, Ger-
many, UK and Sweden [20]. However, the ongoing current project
Recent data show a rising pattern of coal consumption especially on biomass co-firing are about 17 projects (commercialize projects)
that consumed for electricity generation. Coal use increased by throughout the worlds [21]. Table 2 listed the current commer-
80.12% from 2000 to 2008 in Malaysia [14], and coal consumption cialize project (ongoing) on direct co-firing type with coal as pri-
for electricity generation contributed the most to GHG emissions mary fuel [21]. Implementation of co-firing offers some
with 1.1993 kg/kWh [15]. Electricity generation and emission pat- advantages; these advantages are increased boiler efficiency,
terns in Malaysia from 1976 to 2008 has indicated that the high reduction of cost and lowering of GHG emissions [22]. Co-firing also
dependence of Malaysia on fossil fuel in electricity sector was the improves the net energy balance because biomass residue com-
main cause of the country’s GHG emissions [16]. bustion consumes less energy when mining and transportation of
The co-firing of biomass along with coal in existing power plants coal are factored into the economic analysis [23]. Utilization of rice
appears to be most economical with large scale application [17] and straw co-firing with coal is one solution to reduce such costs and
optimal option for increasing biomass energy utilization [18,19] also to reduce dependency on fossil fuel resources.
while also benefitting the environment. Biomass co-firing has LCA methodology is gaining attention for measuring the envi-
been successfully demonstrated in over 228 installations ronment impact of the use of biomass as energy sources. Majority of
the researchers agreed that this method is the best tool for esti-
Table 1 mation of GHG emissions [24] and helpful for environmental
Lists the current rice straw disposal management across the world. improvement [25]. Some papers that used LCA method are willow
Country Practice Sources based electricity generation [26], agriculture crop CHP [27], wood
waste in cogeneration plants [28] and others. Although, some paper
Indonesia, Philippines Straw is heaped into piles at threshing [7]
sites and burned after harvest
already applied the LCA of biomass system to electricity generation,
Thailand, China, All straw remains in the field and [7] the outcomes are varied regarding the approaches use such as
Northern India rapidly burned in situ functional unit and system boundaries. Table 3 indicates a literature
India, Bangladesh, Straw removal and used for cooking, [7] on LCA applied into biomass system electricity generation. Defi-
Nepal fodder and stable bedding
nitely, prove that the results were varied between each studied
Valencia (Spain) A project for rice straw blankets to [8]
dry farming depending on aim of study and also the coverage of system
California Burning the rice straw due to low [3] boundaries too. The main limitation of LCA is that the assumptions
cost disposal method and choice of allocation method made throughout the study can
Thailand Annually, 8.5e14.3 MT about 90% of [9,10] affect the results too [28].
rice straw is burned in the fields
Malaysia Open burning practice of rice straw [11,12]
This paper studies the life cycle of rice straw co-firing at existing
coal power plants at Malaysia based on those plants that have the
286 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

Table 2
Current commercialize project (ongoing) on direct co-firing type with coal as primary fuel.

Country Plant name Boiler Output (MW) Co-fired fuel

Denmark Ensted Grate 40 Straw, wood chips

Denmark Grenaa Co-Generation Plant CFB drum type 18.6 Straw
Denmark Randers Cogeneration Plant Grate (spreader stoker) 52 Wood chips
Finland Kantvik Plant Grate 4 HFO, peat
Finland Lohja Heating Plant BFB 22 Biomass, REF, HFO
Finland Naantali CHP Plant PF 260 Biomass
Finland Pori Mill CFB 12 Biomass, HFO, LFO
Finland Salo Power Plant BFB 16 Biomass, peat, REF, HFO, LFO, BGAS
Finland Sakyla Power Plant Grate 9 HFO, BGAS, Peat
Finland Linnankatu power plant PF 35 HFO, LFO, Biomass
Finland Vaskiluoto power plant PF 258 BIOMASS, HFO, LFO
Sweden Stora Enso Fors Mill CFB 9.6 Wood, Bark
UK Welsh Power Group PF 363 PLASTICs, various agri-products
USA Bay Front Station Grate 44 Wood, shredded rubber, railroad ties
USA City of Tacoma Steam Plant BFB 18 Wood, refused derived fuel (RDF)

nearest available rice straw supply. In the case of co-firing rice 2. Survey data
straw with coal, the assessment was done from “cradle to grave”
starting from paddy cultivation and harvesting, its transport to Information on the average paddy production in five regions
energy conversion, and also from coal based electricity generation (Table 3) from the five-year statistical data (2006e2010) of paddy
involving coal in mine, transportation and power generation (see production in Malaysia [29]. Thirteen states divided into five re-
Fig. 1). The aim of this study is: (i) to identify the most promising gions which were: North (Perlis, Kedah, Penang, Perak); Central
existing coal power plants that are suitable for rice straw co-firing, (Selangor, NS, Malacca); South (Pahang, Johor); East (Kelantan,
(ii) to examine GHG emissions and energy consumption for rice Terengganu); and Sabah/Sarawak. Among of these regions, North
straw life cycle, (iii) to evaluate the environment impact reduction and Central region are the best choices for rice straw co-firing at
due to rice straw co-firing, and (iv) to analyse the potential eco- existing coal power plant due to supply availability and small radius
nomic impact of rice straw co-firing at power plants. of catchment area. Table 4 indicates the average paddy production

Table 3
Literature on LCA applied into biomass system electricity generation.

Year Country Process Comments Author

1999 Germany 10% co-firing straw and residual wood Using three different system to identify the environment [25]
impact of co-firing
Functional Unit: 1kwh
Result: co-firing reduce the environment impact:
35e37 g CO2/kWh
1999 Italy IGCC with poplar Comparison the environment impact between IGCC [26]
with poplar and conventional fossil fuel alone
Include the system boundaries for poplar exclude the
conventional fossil fuel
FU: 1 MWh
Result: 110 kg/MWh
2004 Italy IGCC with biomass LCA was applied for biomass energy production only [27]
FU: 1 MJ
Result: 170 kg CO2/MWh
2005 Italy IBGCC Comparison between LCA of biomass and LCA of IGCC [28]
Adapt the result for analyse the LCA of IBGCC
Biomass FU: 1 MJ
Result: 130 kg CO2/MWh
2010 Spain Combustion of Poplar and Both energetic crop are compare to natural gas [28]
Ethiopian Mustard System boundaries: cultivation, harvest, transport,
generation, disposal
FU: 10 MW, 25 MW, 50 MW
Result: Poplar is less impact than Ethiopian Mustard
when use for energetic purpose
2012 France CHP using wood waste Comparison between 2 MW and 10 MW of electricity [29]
generated from CHP wood waste
System boundaries: wood storage-transport-power
generation
FU: 1 MJ electricity generated
Result: CO2 emission from 10 MW is less than CO2
emission from 2 MW
2013 Taiwan Bio-char co-firing with coal System boundaries: rice straw collection until system [30]
co-firing
FU: 1 kWh electricity generation
Result: 1.04 kgCO2-eq/kWh for 10% co-firing and
0.99 kgCO2-eq/kWh for 20% co-firing
 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294 287

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of life cycle co-firing rice straw.

from 2006 to 2010 and lists the existing coal power plants in consumption calculated from the following: energy unit 43.1 MJ/
Malaysia. L1, and fuel consumption 5.5 kmL1 for a lorry capacity of 1.5 t and
The electricity generated from rice straw is calculated using Eq. 4 kmL1 [33] for a truck with a size of 400 800 .
(3) [30]. HHV employed in this analysis is 14.71 MJ/kg [31], and The data used in determined the energy consumption and GHG
NPHR for rice straw fired alone is 17.4 MJ/kWh [30]. The average emissions from rice straw preparation was taken from Ref. [34].
potential electricity generated from rice straw fired alone is Application of rice straw as the sole feedstock for electricity
936 GWh which consumed 1,107,618 tons of rice straw. Rice straw generation has not yet been implemented in Malaysia, so the
cannot be fired alone at the Manjung Power Station because of a analysis uses data from other analogous biomass resources such as
limited rice straw supply. wood-fired power generation and agriculture waste. Emission
factors for rice straw combustion in the boiler assumed to be the
2.1. Environmental and energy assessment for rice straw same as corncob and straw [35]. Emission factors for coal com-
preparation bustion in the boiler was adapted from USEPA External Combustion
Sources report [36]. Table 6 indicates the emission factor of rice
The assessment of GHG emissions includes the activities straw combustion in the boiler.
involved in the harvesting of rice straw, transportation of rice straw
to the collection centre (PP->CC) and transportation to the existing 2.2. Economics component of rice straw preparation
coal power plant (CC->ECPP). For the purposes of these calcula-
tions, the assumption made that each district had one collection The general operation for rice straw collection is baling. Table 7
centre (CC). The CC located in the centre of each district for the indicates the breakdown cost for rice straw bale at collection point
purpose of measuring the hauling distance from paddy field. [14]. Total rice straw cost is RM 28.20/bale at collection centre, but
Table 5 shows the average rice straw collection centre area and the rice straw transportation cost from CC to the existing coal po-
average hauling distance for the two regions studied. The wer plant must be added.
assumption was that a lorry with a 1.5 capacity tonne used for VCLORRY and VCTRUCK are capacity of a vehicle (kg vehicle1),
moving rice straw from paddy production to the collection centre; where capacity of the lorry is 900 kg (2 bales per lorry) and the
that is because the majority of vehicles used to transport paddy truck is 9000 kg (20 bales per truck). (WRS/VC) is the number of
waste in Malaysia have a load capacity of between 1-to-3 tonnes trips required by the lorry and truck for the rice straw trans-
[32]. Typically, a truck of 400 800 used for transferring rice straw bales portation. SCTP (RM km1) is the specific cost for vehicle transports
from the CC to the power plant. Rice straw transportation energy was RM 5 km1 [37]. SCTP (RM person1) is the specific transport

Table 4
Average paddy production from 2006 to 2010 and existing coal power plants in Malaysia.

Regions Harvested Paddy production, ton Average straw Coal power plant Capacity
area, ha yield, ton/ha

North 371092.8 1476824 3.9797 Manjung 3  700 MW

Central 40869.2 203653.8 4.9831 Jimah, Kapar 2  700 MW,
2  300 MW, 2  500 MW
South 2535.4 8794.2 2.5375 Tanjung Bin 3  700 MW
East 96169.6 341694.4 3.4686
Sabah/Sarawak 161644.8 347439 2.1494 Mukah, Sejingkat, PPLS 270 MW, 100 MW, 110 MW
288 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

Table 5 Table 7
Average rice straw collection centre area and average hauling distance for the two Breakdown cost for rice straw bale.
studied region.
Collection centre, RM/Bale
States State area, Average CC Region Path Average hauling
Driver Broker Rope Fuel Machine Transportation Total
km2 area, km2 distance, km
5 1 1.7 1.6 8.9 10 28.2
Perlis 821 821 North PP->CC 17.77
Kedah 9500 791.67
Penang 753 251 CC->MP 314.90
Perak 21,035 2103.5
Selangor 8104 900.44 Central PP->CC 15.99 State Inventory Database, Australia Database and SimaPro software
Malacca 1664 554.67 programme. Rice straw power generation at Malaysia is still under
NS 6686 955.14 CC->KP 104.30 research development. Currently Malaysia generate electricity us-
ing the rice husk for own consumption but the consumption rice
straw as a fuel is in early planning. Therefore, the data for rice straw
fee; the assumption is RM 10 per trip for lorry and RM 100 per trip combustion is using the wood combustion. Development of rice
for truck [38,39]. Modification costs assumed for the rice straw straw co-firing with existing coal power plants is not commer-
feeding to the existing boiler were RM150,000 per MW of power cialize yet even though other biomass resources, like wood chip
generated [18,30,40].Average coal cost is RM0.3348 per kg [41]. already in commercialize state. About 77 power plants across the
world apply the wood co-firing technique with output capacity
3. Methodology between 20 MW and 2035 MW [21].

To analyse the environmental and economic implications of rice 3.3.1. Paddy production
straw use as fuel that fed along with coal to the boiler, a full life Malaysia paddy plantations are planting two times a year, which
cycle assessment used. The full chain energy analysis of rice straw, are off season and main season. However, there were no significant
starting from paddy production to electricity generation at power different among the tillage energy, fertilizing energy and harvest-
plant, precisely examined. Fig. 1 shows a flow diagram of rice straw ing energy between both season [43]. This paper uses the average
co-firing life cycle. data to indicate both seasons. Mechanical field operation derived
from fuel consumption from land preparation machinery, plant
3.1. Goal and scope definition protection machinery and harvesting machinery.

The goal of using life cycle assessment is to identify the 3.3.2. Rice straw collection
contribution of environment impact toward the co-firing rice straw Rice straw collection after harvest paddy residue could be
at existing coal power plant available at Malaysia. The functional accomplished by use of baler machine and tractor. The data took
unit is defined from the most potential of existing coal power plant from five sites in Northern region of Malaysia that involved with
capacity output which are 6,132,000 MWh (Manjung Power Plant, rice straw collection. This area used field baling technique with
MP) and 2,628,000 MWh (Kapar Power Plant, KP). Rice straw push-type baler. Each baler can produce bales weighing about
preparation environment impact only considered the emissions 450 kg each. After harvesting, rice straw must be dry for baling
related to the climate change particularly CO2, CH4 and N2O process, normally after two to three days after harvested. Rice straw
expressed as CO2 equivalent tones (tCO2eq). Climate change gives taken when the water content of the straw is less than 25% [44]. In
the highest contribution to the environment impact during the this study an SGR ratio 0.75 [45] is used to estimate the straw
paddy residue preparation compared to other environment con- residue yields per area through Eq. (1).
ditions (such as ozone layer and eco-toxicity) [42]. Two existing
coal power plant at Malaysia are being use as case study for co- ASP ¼ ðPP =HA Þ  SGR (1)
firing based on their availability of rice straw.
Availability of rice straw based on nearness of rice straw supply
to a power plant; using this criterion, the most suitable co-firing
3.2. System boundary and data source
coal power stations are Kapar Power Station and Manjung Power
Station. Optimization of rice straw area served and radius distance
Fig. 1 show the system boundary of rice straw co-firing at
estimated using the Eq. (2) [46].
existing coal power plants. Major operating units located inside this
system are paddy production, rice straw collecting, rice straw
transportation and power generation. Table 8 shows the main AS ¼ ASP =ðSY  hC  FA  FF Þ (2)
process of life cycle of rice straw co-firing and their data sources.
3.3.3. Rice straw transportation
3.3. Inventory analysis Bale rice straw applied for analysing transportation sector. Two
transportation paths considered paddy production (PP) to the CC
This section explains how the collected data were adapted to the and the CC to coal power plants. Transportation emissions calcu-
LCA model and gives details on assumptions that were made. The lated using the GHG Emissions from transportation or mobile
inventory data compiled using the Open LCA Framework. However, sources, Version 2.3 software [47]. Paddy production to collection
certain data cited from some international database such as United center route considered of 1 tone lorry capacity that occupies 2
bales rice straw per lorry. A small size lorry is use due to convenient
way to transmit through small road with short distance. Trans-
Table 6 portation of rice straw from the collection centre to existing coal
Emission factor rice straw combustion in the boiler. power plant (MP/KP) used a truck of 400 800 size. That is because
Emission, kg/MJ N2O CH4 SOX NOX CO CO2 truck transportation is the most feasible option in the residue
Emission factor 5.59E-6 9.03E-6 2.02E-6 2.11E-4 2.58E-4 0.08384
collection systems because trucks have a high degree of mobility
[3]. Transportation of rice straw from paddy production to the coal
 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294 289

Table 8
Main process of life cycle of rice straw co-firing and their data sources.

Process Subsystems Sources of data

1. Paddy production Fertilizers Measure data from Northern paddy farm area
Literature data [36]
Irrigation Measure data from interview session
(Senior Engineer, Irrigation and drainage service, MADA)
Mechanical field operations Data from questionnaire to selected farmer in Northern region
Literature [37]
Pesticides Data from Ref. [38]
Literature data [39]
2. Rice straw collection Mechanical equipment Data from four case project of rice straw in MADA area
3. Rice straw transportation Transportation system Data from four case project of rice straw in MADA area
4. Power generation Rice straw bale combustion Data from wood waste combustion
Electricity generation

power plant, in Malaysia, modelled according to the routes, the calculated using the Eq. (5) [50]. And Eq. (6) used to estimate the
type of transport and distances shown in Table 9. CH4 and N2O emissions. Power generation produces air-born
emissions including CO2, SOX, NOX and CH4. CO2 emissions from
3.3.4. Power generation combustion coal fired alone estimated using Eq. (7) [19].
The environment impact relevant to the rice straw co-firing X  
taken from the US LCI database based on wood waste combustion CO2;T ¼ D  DD  Ci  DOi  CO2; m:w =Cm:w (5)
and inventory data from Ecoinvent. The analysis of co-firing rice i¼1
straw used Equation (3) to obtain the amount of rice straw needed
for electricity generation. Both coal power plants are situated near EP ¼ AS  EFP;S (6)
the sea, so the availability factor of paddy farm is assumed to be 25%
(that includes a deduction of 50% for being located by sea and a CO2 ¼ FC  HHVC  EFCO2 (7)
deduction of 25% for infrastructure condition). The farmland factor
estimated at 50% due to weather conditions that may cause inac- 3.5. Life cycle impact assessment
cessibility to collect rice straw. The collection efficiency estimated
40% [48]. Availability of rice straw to co-fire with coal was a 30% The impact assessment method used in this study was CML
ratio for the north region and 20% for the central region. 2001 based on problem oriented approach [51]. The used impact
assessment categories in this study cover climate change from
QELECT ¼ QRS;AL =NPHRRS;AL ¼ HHVRS  WRS;AL =NPHRRS;AL
carbon dioxide emission, eutrophication as a result of nitrous ox-
(3) ides, acidification from sulphur dioxide and human toxicity arising
Fig. 2 show the flow diagram of coal alone life cycle based from hydrogen fluorine and other inorganic chemical such as
electricity generation. It’s used to analyse the life cycle assessment beryllium.
of coal alone based electricity generation, in order to make the
comparison between the co-firing rice straw and coal alone based 3.6. Economic evaluation criteria
electricity generation. The data taken from US LCI database and
inventory data from Ecoinvent referred on bituminous coal elec- The commercialization of biomass (rice straw) co-firing faces
tricity generation at power plants. The relationship for electricity difficulty because the economics are not favourable; biomass costs
generation and coal needed for coal alone electricity generation are higher than coal costs [18]. Economic evaluation of each co-
examined using Equation (4). The apply parameter based on firing option based on savings in fuel cost arising from price dif-
Manjung Power (MP) Plant technical characteristics [49]. ferences of coal and biomass, and income generated through the
sale of emission credits [52]. The analysis involves calculating total
QELECT;CALONE ¼ HHVCOAL  WCOAL; ALONE =NPHRCOAL (4) operating costs and total capital investment in order to determine
the additional cost due to CO2 mitigation.

3.4. GHG emission evaluation criteria analysis 3.6.1. Operating cost

Operating cost determined based on two components: pur-
The greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O emitted during the chased rice straw cost (PCRS ¼ CRS  MRS) [53] and total rice straw
combustion of diesel in the tractor which uses to carry the baler transport cost (TCRS ¼ CTV þ CTP). Total transportation cost of rice
machine. The estimation of CO2 from tractor diesel combustion straw related to the annual travel distance (DT, in km year1) cost
per vehicle and the fee paid for transport personnel. Rice straw
transportation has two segments: from paddy production to the
Table 9
collection centre and from collection centre to existing coal power
Transportation of rice straw from paddy production to the coal power plant.
plant. Annual travel distance used the average distance drawn from
Transport route Type of transport Distance (km) the optimization of rice straw served in Eq (8). Therefore, the total
North Central annual travelled distance (DT) estimated as:
Paddy production Small lorry (1.5 tone lorry) 17.77 15.99
to collection centre DT ¼ ðADPP/CC  WRS =VCL Þ þ ðADCC/MP  WRS =VCT Þ (8)
Collection centre Long truck (less than 32 tone) 314.90 104.30
to coal power plant
Hence, transport vehicle cost is (CTV ¼ DT  SCTP). Transport
personnel cost is assumed to be:
290 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

Fig. 2. Flow diagram of coal alone based electricity generation life cycle.

CTP ¼ ððTCTL =WHÞ  SCTPL  WRS =VCL Þ 5. Results and discussion

(9)
þ ððTCTT =WHÞ  SCTPT  WRS =VCT Þ
5.1. Energy consumption and GHG emission for rice straw
In calculating the transport personnel cost, the following as- preparation
sumptions were made. Working hours per year estimated to be
3120 h year1. The respective time consumption for lorry and truck Life cycle of rice straw preparation involves the processes of
for moving rice straw to the power plant were 0.5 h trip1 and paddy production (PP), rice straw collection (RS-C), transportation
48 h trip1. Time consumed for lorry and truck deliveries to the KP of rice straw to the collection centre (CC) for each district and
(Kapar Plant) respectively would be an h trip1 and 8 h trip1. transportation of rice straw from CC to the existing coal power
plant. Table 11 shows energy consumption and GHG emissions of
3.6.2. Capital cost the overall life cycle of rice straw preparation. All the process stages
Capital cost strongly depends on the amount of rice straw to co- involve the 5% ratio of rice straw co-firing at existing coal power
fired at power plants and whether the rice straw can fed to the plant with capacity 700 MW (MP) and 300 MW (KP). Overall en-
existing coal boiler via the existing feeding system or requires ergy consumption for MP and KP are 0.1113 TJ/MWh and 0.1019 TJ/
separate feeding system [40]. The capital cost (CC) for rice straw co- MWh respectively. Overall GHG emissions for rice straw prepara-
firing using existing feeding systems calculated as tion (starting from paddy production until rice straw available at
    coal power plant, Fig. 1) range between 0.4067 and 0.5994 kg CO2-
CC ¼ 150; 000  WRS  HHVRS = WC;AL  DWC  HHVC  PO eq per kg rice straw ready at coal power plant. Current CO2 emis-
(10) sion at MP with unit capacity 700 MW was 365.8 kg CO2/MWh [56].
Considering each process, the largest contribution to the GHG
Total rice straw co-firing costs are (CRS ¼ PCRS þ TCRS þ CC). The emissions is from paddy production due to large volume of
CO2 emission price [30] calculated using Eq. (11). methane emissions. CH4 emission for North region is 50.53 kg CH4
        per ha and Central region is 19.13 kg CH4 per ha. The dominant
CC  WC;AL þ CG  EG;C;AL ¼ CC  WC;CO þ CRS  WRS;CO cause of this different are due to soil condition and land use pattern
 
þ CG  EG;CO þ CC [57]. Therefore, a decrease in CH4 emission would be the best op-
tion for reducing the GHG emissions from paddy plantation [58].
(11)
Transportation of rice straw from paddy plantation to power
plant contributes about 11%e15% of total CO2-eq emission with 5%
co-firing ratio. Adding the co-firing ratio up to 20% dramatically rise
4. Study and location
the percentage of transportation to 83.47% of total CO2-eq emission.

Malaysia has several operating coal power plants with boiler

output capacities ranging from 100 MW to 700 MW. Currently, coal 5.2. GHG emission for power generation
for electricity generation in Malaysia fully imported from other
countries which include Australia (60%), Indonesia (30%), China Rice straw co-firing with coal occurs in an existing coal power
(5%) and South Africa (5%) these will facing to the major issue of plant with capacity 700 MW for MP and 300 MW for KP. The
supply risk in the future [54]. However, proximate supply avail- baseline emission coal power plant in West Malaysia is taken 0.6 kg
ability of rice straw for co-firing indicated that the most suitable co- CO2-eq/kWh [59]. Direct co-firing is used when rice straw is mixed
firing coal power stations were the Kapar Power Station and the with coal at the existing coal feeder, and the fuel mixture can go to
Manjung Power Station (KP and MP). The Manjung coal-fired po- existing coal mills that pulverize coal and rice straw together and
wer plant is located on a man-made island off the coast of Perak in
Malaysia. It generated 2100 MW from its three 700 MW units of
boiler. According to [55], this one unit of boiler already experience Table 10
Rice straw availability in the two studied region.
the co-firing of pelletized EFB with 1%e3% co-firing ratio for one
week only due to storage problem and increase the slugging. Kapar North Central
Power Plant is a major station in the Klang Valley in the region of Rice straw yield (t/km )2
297.92 368.19
Malaysia. This power station, which fired natural gas, oil and coal, Availability factor 0.25 0.25
located 56 km west of Kuala Lumpur facing the Strait of Malacca. Farmland factor 0.5 0.5
Table 10 indicates the availability of rice straw for the two regions Area served (km2) 311535.4 34176.2
Radius distance (km)/one trip 314.9 104.3
studied. These coal power stations generated 300 MW and 700 MW Suitable coal power station Manjung Kapar
for each boiler capacity.
 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294 291

Table 11 100%
Energy consumption and GHG emissions for overall rice straw preparation.
99%

CO2 Reduction (%)

Region Process Energy GHG emissions, ton
consumption, y = 0.0485x + 0.9404
CO2 Nitrous Methane CO2-eq 98%
TJ MP
oxide
97% KP
North PP 455.47 4.86 847.42 4268.47 5111.03
RS-C 19.88 63.89 0.48 0.08 64.44 96%
TPP->CC 27.96 92.40 175.74 0.06 268.19
TCC->MP 68.14 228.61 372.91 0.18 601.70 95%
Total 571.45 380.04 1396.55 4268.79 6045.37 y = 0.0279x + 0.9433
Central PP 112.12 1.47 256.21 1290.54 1545.29 94%
RS-C 4.89 21.87 0.16 0.03 22.06 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
TPP->CC 6.2 36.18 68.81 0.02 105.02
TCC->KP 5.56 32.45 52.93 0.02 85.41 Cofiring
Total 128.77 89.03 378.11 1290.61 1757.78
Fig. 3. CO2 reduction pattern for both power plant (MP and KP).

distribute to the burner based on co-firing ratio rate [52]. If the co- 8000 0.025

GHG Emission per unit electricity

firing percentage is very small (less than 8%), the pre-blended coal

CO2 Emission, kton

7000 y = -2910.4x2 + 209.29x + 6947
and rice straw can be fired in existing facilities with minimum 0.02
6000
modification [60]. The direct co-firing is the simplest and lowest-

generated, kton/MWh
cost option. Based on Ref. [22], with a co-firing ratio of less than 5000 0.015
CO2 Emission,kton
8%, direct co-firing can be used and biomass can be combined with 4000
CO2 Saving,kton
coal prior to the pulverisers. Ref. [61] indicated the composition of 3000 0.01
GHG Emission, kton/MWh
different coal and biomasses in physical properties, elemental
2000
composition, inorganic properties and proximate analysis. Co-firing 0.005
biomass can create deposit and corrosion problems depending on 1000
the form of biomass fuel. Review paper [62] indicated that no 0 0
corrosion observed below a 10% straw co-firing, and no chlorine 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
initiated corrosion observed at either co-firing level. But the op- Cofiring Ratio
portunity for successfully co-firing rice straw remains high due to
technical feasibility proven based on generation of 7000 MW by Fig. 4. CO2 emission in kTon, CO2 saving in kTon and GHG emission per unit electricity
wood products [18]. generated as a function of co-firing ratio.

Table 12 lists the GHG emissions at a power plant for coal fired
alone and co-firing rice straw at 5% with coal. Majority of air
emission that causes global warming and acid rain reduced GHG emissions per kWh electricity generated show a power
significantly through the practice of co-firing. Fig. 3 show the CO2 regression type relationship between 5% until 20% co-firing ratio.
reduction pattern for both power plant (MP and KP). KP CO2 The relationship to the various co-firing ratio function is, GHG
emission drop sharply with slope reduction, m ¼ 0.048, which is emission reduction per MWh ¼ 0.001 (RRS,CO)1.
double from MP CO2 emission reduction. However, some literature Rice straw co-firing indicated higher GHG reduction compared
[63] indicates that SO2 and CO2 reduction can be up to 75% and 93% to switch grass co-firing with only 13.46% at 0.2 co-firing
respectively depending on the co-firing ratio. In 1991, CO2 emission ratio. This comparison is from a simulated result [30] where;
was 5.35 million ton from coal power plant, increased to 28.17 EGHG,CO ¼ 606RSW,CO þ 996.13. With a greater co-firing ratio, the
million ton in 2000, however it will be 107.71 million ton CO2 CO2 reduction is more drastic compared to reduction at GHG
emission ton in 2020 [64]. The synthesis results prove that co-firing emissions per unit electricity generated. It must be highlighted that
can help the mitigation of CO2 emission in the power industry rice straw co-firing can mitigate CO2 emission exponentially
sector. regarding the co-firing ratio with; CO2 SAVING ¼ 236.5e2.653RRS,CO.
Fig. 4 shows the CO2 emission reduction in kTon and GHG Co-firing rice straw 5% can saving the CO2 emission about
emissions per unit electricity generated as a function of co-firing 297.8 k ton CO2 emission.
ratio. The simulated result gives quadratic polynomial relation for Fig. 5 shows the result of environment impact for three different
co-firing ratio between 5% until 95% which is ECO2 ;CO ¼ type of combustion: coal alone, MP power generation and KP power
2910R2RS;CO þ 209:2RRS;CO þ 6947. The higher reduction is due generation. The characterized data for 6,132,000 MWh of coal alone
analysis involve the life cycle of co-firing rice straw and life cycle of electricity has been compared with the characterized data for
coal alone based electricity generation (Fig. 1). 6,132,000 MWh co-firing rice straw based electricity generated.

Table 12
Life cycle of GHG emission at Manjung Power Plant (MP) and Kapar Power Plant (KP) for coal fired alone and 5% co-firing rice straw with coal.

Power plant Emission, kton CO2 CH4 N2O SOX CO NOX

MP Coal alone 138837.40 15.39 0.29 46.13 167.61 1664.33

5% rice straw 6950.22 12.37 0.17 17.15 0.79 19.09
Percentage (%) reduction 94.99 19.60 42.16 62.83 99.53 98.85
KP Coal alone 59501.75 6.59 0.13 19.77 71.83 713.28
5% rice straw 2980.42 5.29 0.07 7.38 0.35 8.27
Percentage (%) reduction 94.99 19.71 42.24 62.66 99.52 98.84
292 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

Fig. 5. Comparison for different type of system toward the environment impact.

Fig. 6. Comparison for different type of rice straw preparation system toward the environment impact.

Four impact categories are considered: climate change, eutrophi- a significant impact to the eutrophication due to emission of NOX
cation, acidification and human toxicity. Coal power alone gives the and SOX through the use of fertilizer and chemical agriculture.
highest impact for all categories. Co-firing can reduce all the impact Nevertheless paddy production contributes to climate change and
categories by 73.22% (human toxicity), 92.54% (acidification), and eutrophication it also creates a great advantage due to absorption of
94.97% (climate change) and 98.83% (eutrophication). The climate carbon dioxide through photosynthesis process [66].
change reduction is corresponded to the decline of CO2 emission.
For all impact categories the utilization of rice straw co-firing at 5.3. Economic analysis
existing coal power plants give a better environmental perfor-
mance than coal alone based electricity generation [65]. Co-firing rice straw with coal is intended to reduce the CO2
Fig. 6 presents the comparison for different component of rice emissions that coal power plants emit. But this technique requires
straw preparation system toward the environment impact. Refer to investment/costs due to biomass purchase, transport and modifi-
Fig. 6, rice straw combustion gives the highest impact for all cate- cation of existing coal power plants. Fig. 7 shows the effect of the
gories. Transportation of rice straw is contributing the highest co-firing ratio on cost of rice straw co-firing. The synthesized cost of
impact under the rice straw preparation. The summary of envi- co-firing is the adding of rice straw (operation cost and capital cost)
ronmental impact associated with the co-firing rice straw listed in minus the credit of SOX emission. The overall cost of co-firing is
Table 13. The result based on MP power generation which is contributed to by rice straw cost. Without the CO2 emission credit,
700 MW. In order to identify each component involved the paddy the co-firing cost shows a 93.29% rise from baseline coal cost. Fig. 8
production output is set to 4,322,259 kg of rice straw at field. The indicates the co-firing ratio effect of reduction in CO2 and additional
rice straw collection output is 9605 bale of rice straw. The rice straw costs. With increasing the co-firing ratio, the reduction of CO2
production amount is 0.0742 kg CO2 per kg rice straw ready at fields emission is increased as coal is replaced by rice straw and emissions
equivalent to 296.38 kg CO2 per ha. The paddy productions also give the CO2 neutral rice straw. The additional cost rate also grows due

Table 13
Environment impacts of rice straw preparation for MP (700 MW).

Environment system Categories, unit

Acidification, Climate change, Eutrophication, Human toxicity,

kg SO2-Eq kg CO2-Eq kg NOX-Eq kg 1,4-DCB-Eq

Paddy production 8.22E3 3.21E5 1.63E4 7.65E3

Rice straw collection 3.74E2 2.78E4 6.42E2 1.72E4
Transportation 1, TPP->CC 1.82E2 4.05E4 3.13E2 3.2E2
Transportation 2, TCC->KP 3.81E2 9.84E4 6.53E2 6.66E2
Rice straw combustion 1.37E5 1.05E7 2.44E5 2.06E5
 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294 293

550 6. Conclusion
Billions

500
C_RS
450 This feasibility study examined economic, energy and GHG
C_COAL
400 emissions implications with respect to Malaysian power plants of-
350 C_SOX fering the most potential for co-firing rice straw. The most suitable
300 Baseline Coal Cost coal power stations for the co-firing technique were the Manjung
250 SYNTHE_COST Power Station (MP) and the Kapar Power Station (KP); suitability
RM

200 was based on high availability of average straw yield near the plants.
150 Emissions from rice straw preparation ranged from 0.152 to
100 0.163 kg CO2-eq per kg for rice straw already at power plant. The
50 biggest constraining factor for co-firing was GHG emissions from the
0 rice straw hauling process from the collection centre to the power
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 plant. Depending on co-firing ratio, the CO2 emission could be 77%
less and SOX emissions could be 55% less. These reductions lower the
Cofiring Ratio
impact on global warming and reduce acid rain potential. Costs of
Fig. 7. Effect of co-firing ratio on cost of rice straw co-firing. co-firing rice straw is 93.29% higher compared to conventional
baseline coal cost. This is because the computed cost of co-firing is
highly dependent on rice straw cost, which is expensive because of
4.5E+09 2.0E+09 transportation and capital costs. The rice straw co-firing technique
Reduction in CO2 ( M tons / year)

4.0E+09 1.8E+09 can be competitive with coal if the CO2 incentive is applied.

Additonal Cost (RM/year)

3.5E+09 1.6E+09 The successful implementation of biomass co-firing requires full
3.0E+09
1.4E+09 support from government and various stakeholders. Subsides from
1.2E+09 government can help develop this co-firing technique, and
2.5E+09
1.0E+09 awareness of global warming issues also could become a key factor
2.0E+09
Reduction in 8.0E+08 in encouraging the consumption of renewable energy.
1.5E+09 CO2 6.0E+08
1.0E+09 AC 4.0E+08 References
5.0E+08 2.0E+08
0.0E+00 0.0E+00 [1] Bakos GC, Tsioliaridou E, Potolias C. Technoeconomic assessment and strategic
analysis of heat and power co-generation (CHP) from biomass in Greece.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Biomass and Bioenergy 2008;32:558e67.
Cofiring Ratio [2] Rice market monitor [cited 2012 31 October]; Available from: http://www.foa.
org/economic/est/publications/rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/
Fig. 8. Co-firing ratio effect of reduction in CO2 and additional cost. en/; 2012.
[3] Kadam KL, Forrest LH, Jacobson WA. Rice straw as lignocellulosic resource:
collection, processing, transportation, and environmental aspects. Biomass
and Bioenergy 2000;18:369e89.
[4] Hanafi Emtenan M, Khadrawy HHE, Ahmed WM, Zaabal MM. Some obser-
to higher amount of feeding rice straw to the boiler (capacity cost vations on rice straw with emphasis on updates of its management. World
and transportation cost). However, the effect of increasing the Applied Sciences Journal 2012;16(3):354e61.
additional cost dominates the reduction in CO2 emissions and this [5] Binod P, Sindhu R, Singhania RR, Vikram S, Devi L, Nagalakshmi S, et al. Bio-
ethanol production from rice straw: an overview. Bioresource Technology
causes the increasing of CO2 emission price show in Fig. 8.
2010;101(13):4767e74.
CO2 emission price corresponds to the reduction of CO2 emis- [6] UNEP. Converting waste agricultural biomass into energy source. Osaka,
sion with linearly increased with co-firing ratio. Fig. 9 shows the Japan: Division of Technology, Industry and Economics; 2009.
[7] Bakker R. Rice straw for electricity & heat production, in Biobased Product
effect of co-firing ratio on the CO2 emission price and GHG reduc-
Division, W.U.-A. Senior Scientist, Editor: Cairo; 2009.
tion relative to coal fired alone. [8] Jenkins BM, Bakker RR, Williams RB, Bakker-Dhaliwal R, Summers MD.
The amount of co-firing of rice straw may be decided on the Commercial feasibility of utilizing rice straw in power generation. Proceedings
basis of available incentives for CO2 reduction [40]. Bioenergy 2000.
[9] Suramaythangkoor T, Gheewala SH. Potential alternatives of heat and power
technology application using rice straw in Thailand. Applied Energy 2010;87:
128e33.
[10] Jeng Shiun Lim, Zainuddin Abdul Manan, Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi,
160 0.4 Haslenda Hashim. A review on utilization of biomass from rice industry as a
CO2 Emission Price(RM/metric ton CO2)

coal firing alone(metric ton CO2 /MWh)

GHG Reduction of cofiring relative to

CO2 Emission price source of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
140 0.35 2012;16:3084e94.
Relative
[11] Bakker RR, Jenkins BM, Williams RB. Fluidized bed combustion of leached rice
120 0.3 straw. Energy and Fuels 2002;16:356e65.
[12] Thy P, Jenkins BM, Williams RB, Lesher CE, Bakker RR. Bed agglomeration in
100 0.25
fluidized combustor fueled by wood and rice straw blends. Fuel Processing
Technology 2010;91(11):1464e85.
80 0.2
[13] Huanpeng Liu, Yujie Feng, Shaohua Wu, Dunyu Liu. The role of ash particles in
60 0.15 the bed agglomeration during the fluidized bed combustion of rice straw.
Bioresource Technology 2009;100(24):6505e13.
40 0.1 [14] Sabri A. Rice straw project report 2011, S.M. Shafie, Editor, MADA: PPK B2,
MADA Sanglang, 06000, Jitra Kedah; 2012.
20 0.05 [15] Mahlia TMI. Emissions from electricity generation in Malaysia. Renewable
Energy 2002;27:293e300.
0 0 [16] Shekarchian M, Moghavvemi M, Mahlia TMI, Mazandarani A. A review of the
0 20 40 60 80 pattern of electricity generation and emission in Malaysia from 1976 to 2008.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:2629e42.
Cofiring Ratio [17] IEA. Technology roadmap: bioenergy for heat and power. France: Interna-
tional Energy Agency; 2012.
Fig. 9. Effect of co-firing ratio on the CO2 emission price and GHG reduction relative to [18] Hughes E. Biomass cofiring: economics, policy and opportunities. Biomass and
coal fired alone. Bioenergy 2000;19:457e65.
294 S.M. Shafie et al. / Energy 57 (2013) 284e294

[19] Suramaythangkoor T, Gheewala SH. Potential of practical implementation of [44] Kadama Kiran L, Forrestb Loyd H, Jacobsonb WA. Rice straw as a lignocellu-
rice straw-based power generation in Thailand. Energy Policy 2008;36:3193e7. losic resource: collection, processing, transportation, and environmental as-
[20] Al-Mansour Fouad, Zuwala J. An evaluation of biomass co-firing in Europe. pects. Biomass and Bioenergy 2000;18:369e89.
Biomass and Bioenergy 2010;34(5):620e9. [45] Gadde B, Menke C, Wassmann R. Rice straw as a renewable energy source in
[21] IEA. Database of biomass cofiring initiatives 2009. India, Thailand, and the Philippines: overall potential and limitations for en-
[22] Demirbas A. Sustainable cofiring of biomass with coal. Energy Conversion and ergy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass and Bioenergy
Management 2003;44:1465e79. 2009;33:1532e46.
[23] Mann MK, Spath PL. A life cycle assessment of biomass cofiring in a coal-fired [46] Delivand MK, Barz M, Gheewala SH. Logistics cost analysis of rice straw for
power plant. Clean Products and Processes 2001;3:81e91. biomass power generation in Thailand. Energy 2011;36:1435e41.
[24] Sebastián F, Royo J, Gómez M. Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: [47] Greenhouse gas protocol. All Tools [cited 2012 12 February]; Available from:
GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools; 2011.
Cycle Assessment) methodology. Energy 2011;36(4):2029e37. [48] Petrolia DR. The economics of harvesting and transporting corn stover for
[25] Singh A, Pant D, Korres NE, Nizami AS, Prasad S, Murphy JD. Key issues in life conversion to fuel ethanol: a case study for Minnesota. Biomass and Bioenergy
cycle assessment of ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass: chal- 2008;32:603e12.
lenges and perspectives. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(13):5003e12. [49] Salim MF. Manjung power station-the new experience. Jurutera 2004:24e7.
[26] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA. Life cycle energy and environ- [50] EPA. Direct emissions from mobile combustion sources. In: Leaders C, editor.
mental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Greenhouse gas inventory protocol core module guidance. United States:
Energy 2004;29(7):1023e42. United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2008. p. 38.
[27] Kimming M, Sundberg C, Nordberg Å, Baky A, Bernesson S, Norén O, [51] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, et al.
Hansson P-A. Biomass from agriculture in small-scale combined heat and Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Dübendorf: Swiss
power plants e a comparative life cycle assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2007.
2011;35(4):1572e81. [52] Basu P, Butler J, Leon MA. Biomass co-firing options on the emission reduction
[28] Perilhon C, Alkadee D, Descombes G, Lacour S. Life cycle assessment applied to and electricity generation costs in coal-fired power plants. Renewable Energy
electricity generation from renewable biomass. Energy Procedia 2012;18: 2011;36:282e8.
165e76. [53] Caputo AC, Palumbo M, Pelagagge PM, Scacchia F. Economics of biomass en-
[29] Crop statistical data. Kuala Lumpur: Official Portal of Agriculture Department; ergy utilization in combustion and gasification plants: effects of logistics
2012. variables. Biomass and Bioenergy 2005;28(1):35e51.
[30] Qin X, Mohan T, El-Halwagi M, Cornforth G, McCarl BA. Switchgrass as an [54] TNB. Energy security [cited 2012 12 December]; Available from: http://www.
alternate feedstock for power generation: as integrated environment, energy tnb.com.my/nuclear/energy-security.html; 2012.
and economic life-cycle assessment. Clean Technologies and Environmental [55] Adlansyah AR. Upgrading of Malaysian biomass for cofiring with coal, UNITEN,
Policy 2006;8:233e49. Editor: Malaysia; 2010.
[31] Calvo LV, Otero M, Jenkins BM, Moran A, Garcia AI. Heating process charac- [56] CARMA. Carbon monitoring for action. CARMA; 2007.
teristics and kinetics of rice straw in different atmospheres. Fuel Processing [57] Shao JA, Huang X, Gao M, Wei CF, Xie DT, Cai ZC. Response of CH4 emission of
Technology 2004;85(4):279e91. paddy fields to land management practices at a microcosmic cultivation scale
[32] Abdullah MA. A cost analysis of paddy transportation and distribution systems in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China) 2005;17(4):691e8.
in Muda Agricultural Development Authority Granary area. University Putra [58] Minamikawa K, Sakai N, Yagi K. Methane emission from paddy fields and its
Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur: Department of Agriculture; 2006. mitigation options on a field scale. Microbes and Environments 2006;21(3):
[33] Martensson L. Emissions from volvo’s trucks (standard diesel fuel). V.T. Cor- 135e47.
poration, Editor; 2003. [59] Chee IMS. GHG emission baselines for the power generation sector in
[34] Shafie SM, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH. Life cycle assessment of rice straw-based Malaysia, P.T. Malaysia, Editor, PTM; 2004.
power generation in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya; 2012. [60] Sami M, Annamalai K, Wooldridge M. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel
[35] EEA. EMEP/CORINAIR emission inventory guidebook-2006, in Group 1: com- blends. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2001;27(2):171e214.
bustion in energy and transformation industries 2006. [61] Demirbas A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in
[36] USEPA. Chapter 1: external combustion sources. United States Environmental Energy and Combustion Science 2004;30(2):219e30.
Protection Agency; 2003. [62] Sondreal EA, Benson SS, Hurley JP, Mann MD, Pavlish JH, Sanson ML, et al.
[37] A.R.Adlansyah, Potential for co-firing biomass with coal in Malaysia, in Centre Review of advances in combustion technology and biomass cofiring. Fuel
for Renewable Energy: University Tenaga National. Processing Technology 2001;71:7e38.
[38] Sabri A. Rice straw project report for 1/2011. MADA B11: Kedah 2011. [63] Saidur R, Abdelaziz EA, Demirbas A, Hossain MS, Mekhilef S. A review on
[39] Employment outlook and salary guide 2011/2012: Malaysia, Kelly, Editor, biomass as a fuel for boiler. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Kelly Services; 2011. 2011;15(5):2262e89.
[40] De S, Assadi M. Impact of cofiring biomass with coal in power plants e a [64] Abul Quasem Al-Amin, Chamhuri Siwar, Abdul Hamid Jafar, Nurul Huda.
techno-economic assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33:283e93. Pollution implications of electricity generation in Malaysian economy: an
[41] Abdullah Z. Higher coal prices eat into TNB 9 month net profit. Berita Harian: input-output approach. In: Singapore economic review conference (SERC).
Kuala Lumpur: Business Times; 2009. Singapore: Meritus Mandarin Hotel; 2007.
[42] Shafie SM, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Rismanchi B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) [65] Hongtao Liu, Polenske Karen R, Youmin Xi, Ju’e Guo. Comprehensive evalua-
of electricity generation from rice husk in Malaysia. In: 2011 2nd international tion of effects of straw-based electricity generation: a Chinese case. Energy
conference on advances in energy engineering (ICAEE). Bangkok: Energy Policy 2010;38(10):6153e60.
Procedia; 2012. p. 499e504. [66] Maria Luiza Grillo Renó, Electo Eduardo Silva Lora, José Carlos Escobar Palacio,
[43] Bockari-Gevoa SM, Wan Ismail WI, Azmi Y, Chan CW. Analysis of energy Osvaldo José Venturini, Jens Buchgeister, Oscar Almazan. A LCA (life cycle
consumption in lowland rice-based cropping system of Malaysia. Songkla- assessment) of the methanol production from sugarcane bagasse. Energy
nakarin Journal of Science and Technology 2005;27(4):819e26. 2011;36(6):3716e26.