Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaap

Techno-economic Assessment of Co-gasification of Rice Husk and Plastic

Waste as an Off-grid Power Source for Small Scale Rice Milling - an Aspen
Plus Model
Jamilu Salisu a, b, Ningbo Gao a, *, Cui Quan a
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China
b
Chemical Engineering Department, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Inadequate access to electricity has necessitated other alternative energy sources in Nigeria. As a result, small
Rice husk modern rice milling uses mainly energy from diesel-fired generator, while traditional milling still uses energy
sachet water plastic from the combustion of wood. Consequently, the cost of diesel as fuel has contributed to the high operating cost
gasification
of the rice mills. Moreover, these sources of energy contribute hugely to CO2 emission. Also, rice husk (RH)
Aspen plus
CHP
generated as waste from the mill is not utilized properly in the country, thereby adding to the environmental
Nigeria issue due to open burning disposal. In addition, a large amount of sachet water plastic waste (SWPW) is also
generated in Nigeria. This research therefore presents co-gasification of RH and SWPW in the presence of CaO
with integrated combined heat and power (CHP) generation for small scale rice mills in Nigeria using Aspen plus
model. Optimum operating conditions in the gasification section were determined as inputs to the CHP section.
At 800 ◦ C gasification temperature with feed capacity of 30 kg SWPW/hr and 70 kg RH/hr, the system showed a
CHP efficiency of 70%, which is sufficient for the rice mill energy requirement. The economic assessment of the
system showed promising economic feasibility with a net present value (NPV) value of $1.47 million over 15
years. While the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) value of $0.07-0.11/kWh indicates the cost attractiveness of
the system as compared to other sources of energy in Nigeria. The system demonstrated an alternative cost and
GHG emission savings source of energy. The project will promote the UN’s sustainable development goals of
affordable and clean energy.

1. Introduction fuel is a threat to energy security. The utilization of fossil fuels is also
associated with some environmental issues such as global warming
Aside from day to day activities of mankind’s energy requirement for (Figs. 1 and 2).
lighting, cooking and heating, energy is also needed to convert raw In addition, developing countries struggle to meet their energy de­
materials at the industrial level into a finished product. Thus, the mands. Human Development Index (HDI) by the UN suggested energy
availability of energy has a direct impact globally on industries consumption of 100 giga-joules (GJ) per head as a good indicator of a
competitiveness [1]. And there is a direct link with economic growth country’s well-being. However, about 80% world’s population are in
and energy consumption, which makes energy vital to the overall countries with an average energy consumption of less than 100 GJ per
socio-economic development of mankind. As population increases and head [2].
technology advances, energy demand also rises, for example, 2.9% Nigeria is the largest economy and most populous country in Africa
growth in energy consumption is recorded in the year 2018[2]. The with about 190 million people. The country has only 60% of its popu­
Energy Information Administration has projected about 50% growth in lation access to electricity and only10% with access to clean cooking
the world energy consumption between the year 2018 and 2050 [3]. energy source [6]. Currently, 80% of the country’s electricity generation
Unfortunately, more than 80% of the world energy source is relied on comes from gas (Fig. 3), with Nigeria being the largest user of back-up
fossil fuels source [4]. The over-dependence on non-renewable fossil generators fired by fossil fuels in the continent[6]. Nigerians spend

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105157
Received 13 January 2021; Received in revised form 11 March 2021; Accepted 7 April 2021
Available online 10 April 2021
0165-2370/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

about $1 billion to import self–own power generators annually, with an milling step. Rice husk is produced as a by-product during the rice
additional $10.4 billion on fuel to power them. Subsequently, some milling, and it constitutes about 20% of the total produced paddy rice
businesses spend up to 50% of their revenue on fuels to run these gen­ [19]. Milling plant in Nigeria is classified based on their annual capacity
erators [7]. Although, energy from biofuels and wastes formed the (MT) of ≤ 3000, ≥3,000 ≤ 10,000 and ≥ 10,000 as small scale, medium
largest share of 75% of the country’s total primary energy source and large scale respectively [13].
(Fig. 3). However, only about 5% meet the sustainable development goal In a country like Nigeria, rice husks are usually disposed of via open
7 requirements for modern renewable energy (Fig. 3). Meaning, tradi­ burning method, resulting to air pollution problem, which contributes to
tional ways of burning wood and charcoal are still the dominant sources greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)[20] However, rice husk could be uti­
of energy in the country, which have serious environmental effects of lized to fulfil the energy requirement of the rice mill. [21].
desertification and air pollution. Nigeria has an alarming deforestation In addition to rice husk (RH) as waste, sachet water plastic waste
rate of 4% annually, besides, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to (SWPW) also posed a serious environmental problem in Nigeria. Sachet
land usage and forestry is the largest among all sectors in the country[8]. water commonly known as pure water in Nigeria is a 500 mL commer­
These above factors continue to drive the need for other alternative cial drinking water packaged in polyethylene bag. It is sold around $
energy sources of energy that are renewable, affordable and sustainable. 0.03 (10 Naira). After drinking, the waste plastic, SWPW is disposed
Energy from biomass has been considered recently as a viable alterna­ indiscriminately, generating about 60 million bags of plastic waste daily
tive option due to its carbon neutrality and availability in less value [22], amounting to about 70–100 million tonnes of plastic waste
forms of waste such as agricultural residue and sewage sludge. The idea annually[23]. As a result, blockage of water drainages usually occurs,
of waste to energy will therefore provide developing countries like causing flooding especially during the raining season [24].
Nigeria a greater opportunity of solving their energy crisis. Utilization of rice husk and plastic to energy or fuel can be achieved
Among the biomass resource, agricultural waste has been identified through the thermochemical method: combustion, pyrolysis, and gasi­
as a low-cost feedstock. Globally about 140 billion metric tons of fication, or biological method [25]. Among which gasification offers
biomass is generated annually from agriculture waste [9], which is many advantages of higher efficiency and flexible end-use applications
approximate to 50 billion tons of oil equivalent and 3.6 times more than [26,27]. During gasification, biomass is converted into syngas under a
current world energy consumption. In Nigeria, 11.2 million tonnes of controlled environment of a gasifying agent (air, steam or oxygen). In
agricultural waste containing 147.7 GJ energy is generated annually which, the syngas can be used for heat, electricity and power applica­
[10]. These include rice husk generated as a waste during rice milling. tions. Since rice mill requires both on-site thermal and electrical energy,
Rice being a staple food, it is estimated that about 7.1 million metric the application of gasification technology to rice mill can offer addi­
tons(MMT) rice is consumed by Nigerians in 2019 [12] and by 2050, 36 tional heat recovery benefits. This, through cogeneration of heat and
MMT will be demanded [13]. At present, behind China, Nigeria is the power (CHP), thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the system.
world’s second-largest importer of rice with 2.4 MMT import in 2019 Energy efficiency through CHP also serves as cost savings, and GHG
[12,14]. Recently, to increase local production, the Nigerian govern­ reduction method[28].
ment increased rice importation tariff to 70% and banned its importa­ However, over the years, due to the inadequate power supply from
tion via land borders[12]. The country also restricts access to foreign the national grid, rice millers in Nigeria relied on the power supply from
exchange for rice import[13]. Also, $130 m was set as a loan for small back-up diesel generator. Moreover, traditional rice milling still uses
scale rice farmers to boost local production with 9% interest rate, which energy from burning of woods/charcoal as a major source of energy.
is lower than the normal benchmark rate of 14% [15]. This is necessary Both energy sources are not environmentally friendly, besides, the
since 80% of rice farmers in Nigeria are small scale farmers[16]. Sub­ running cost of using diesel as fuel is high. As a way to solve these energy
sequently, these efforts have yielded a positive changed with 60% in­ crises, this study therefore explores the co-gasification technology of RH
crease in the local rice production between the year 2013 and 2019 [16]. with SWPW for combined heat and power application in small rice
Although the importation of rice begins to rise again, for instance, 9% milling. Although, various studies have conducted a techno-economic
rise is recorded recently[12]. The problems faced by local millers assessment using different feeds [31–39]. However, these existing
include consumer’s preference for foreign imported rice[17]. So also, studies mostly focused their evaluation on using one feed input and
lack of infrastructures, high input costs influencing the price competi­ without on-site integration of the heat recovery. As such, no co- gasifi­
tion, caused by so many factors including inadequate energy supply[18]. cation of rice husk with sachet water plastic waste is reported in the
Rice milling is an energy-intensive process, which consists of pre- literature. This research comprises of co-steam gasification of RH and
milling and milling steps (Fig. 4). Pre-milling (parboiling) is a hydro- SWPW in the presence of CaO with integrated combined heat and power
thermal operation consisting of soaking, steaming and drying. About system using Aspen plus model and the economic assessment of the
90% of the energy requirement in rice milling is utilized in the pre- project is analysed. The studies aimed at providing an alternative clean,

Fig. 1. Word primary energy consumption(a) from 2008 to 2018 (b) by fuel source in 2018[4].

2
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

affordable and sustainable energy source to the existing ones. content, stoichiometric reactor (RSTOIC) is used for the drying process.
The amount of water to be evaporated is controlled using a calculator
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS block with a FORTRAN statement, by this, the extent of the drying re­
action is computed. The calculation is based on the moisture content of
The ultimate and proximate analyses of both RH[40] and SWPW[23] the rice husk specified according to the proximate analysis and the final
used in this study are shown in Table 1. moisture content is set at 5%[45]. A separator, name SEP1 is used to
separate the dried RH from the evaporated water.
2.1. ASPEN PLUS DATA INPUT The dried RH together with the SWPW are then fed to the pyrolysis
units ‘PYR1 and PYR2’, which are modelled using RYIELD reactors.
To start the simulation, stream class specified as “MIXCINC’ and a During the pyrolysis, the unconventional feeds are decomposed into
property method are chosen. MIXCINC represent a combination of their constituent components: N2, H2, O2, C, H2O, S and ASH. The yield
MIXED stream, pure solid, CISOLID, and NC, nonconventional streams. distributions are calculated according to the ultimate analysis of the feed
Methods such as RK-SOAVE, RKS-BM, and PR-BM are found to be suit­ with the aid of calculator block and FORTRAN statement.
able for gasification occurring at high-temperature components with Products from the pyrolysis unit enter the GASIFIER, here, the
light gas components [41]. Many research has recorded a convincing reactor is modelled using RGIBBS model. The RGibbs model assumes
result with RKS- BM, hence this simulation uses RKS- BM method [42]. chemical equilibrium using minimizing of Gibbs energy method. In the
Then, RH and SWPW being the feed are specified as non-conventional, GASIFIER, sorbent enhanced steam gasification occurs, where the py­
where their properties in terms of ultimate and proximate analyses are rolysis Products from MIXER1 react with both CaO and steam to produce
supplied to the simulation. Also, HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT were the gasification Products, the major reactions occurring in In the
selected to evaluate the density and enthalpy of the feed. Equally, GASIFIER are represented by equations 1 to 5.
MIXED component such as H2, CO, CH4, CO2, N2, O2, and H2O were Boudouard C + CO2 →2CO + 172 kJ/mol (1)
selected from the Aspen plus data bank, which are frequently used
during the simulation. Lastly, CISOLID components, CaO, CaCO3, and C Char gasification C + H2 O→CO + H2 + 131 kJ/mol (2)
were inputted as pure solid.
Methanation C + 2H2 →CH4 − 74.8 kJ/mol (3)
2.2. MODEL ASSUMPTION
Water-gas shift CO + H2 O→CO2 + H2 − 41.2 kJ/mol (4)
In this model, some assumptions were considered as follows [42–44]:
Steam reforming CH4 + H2 O→CO + 3H2 + 206 kJ/mol (5)
• Throughout, the process is considered as isothermal and steady-state After the gasification, the raw syngas ‘OUTPUT’ undergoes cleaning
with uniform pressure. in SEP2 and SEP3 to remove CACO3 and ASH + CHAR respectively. The
• Char is assumed as 100% carbon. syngas is then cooled in EX1 before entering SEP4, where the final
• All the gases considered in the model behave as an ideal gas. cleaning occurs to remove water and other by-product. The heat re­
• Ash does not take part in the gasification process. covery from EX1 is used to generate steam at 200 ◦ C, which is fed to the
• CaO catalytic effect, higher hydrocarbon and tar are not considered. GASIFIER.

2.3. GASIFICATION MODEL 2.4. POWER GENERATION MODEL

The gasification system consists of three processes (drying, pyrolysis The power plant section is simulated using a micro- gas turbine
and gasification) happening simultaneously inside one reactor. How­ model, which comprises of an air compressor, combustion chamber, and
ever, these processes are represented each in different units during this turbine. Compared to a conventional gas turbine, micro- gas turbine has
simulation. The process simulation flow sheet is shown in Fig. 5, which an additional heat exchanger name as recuperator is placed in-between
includes steam co-gasification RH and SWPW in presence of CaO. The the air compressor and the combustion chamber. This arrangement
process parameters used for the gasification section are also shown in improves the efficiency of the system[46]. So, the cooled and pure
Table 2. syngas’’ PURESYN’’ from the gasification unit enters the combustion
Only RH undergoes drying since SWPW has a very low moisture unit, COMB, where it mixes with the preheated and compressed air. A

Fig. 2. Various countries : (a) Primary energy consumption per capita in 2018 (b) Electricity consumption per capita in 2018 [2,4,5].

3
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

calculator was used to set the flow rate of the air above the stoichio­ steam. High H2 content is also found during steam gasification of
metric value based on the incoming syngas flow rate. A summary of the biomass in the presence of CaO by other studies: 65.50 vol %[47]
input parameters used in this power plant section is shown in Table 3. 54.43% [48] 79.32 vol %[44].
Hot flue gases from the combustor enter turbine for expansion, hence, On the other end, increasing gasification temperature decreased both
mechanical work produces electrical energy. Exhaust gases from the CH4 and CO2 contents. This signifies that steam reforming reaction
turbine are cooled with the recuperator, followed by cooling in EX2 and prevails over water –gas shift forward reaction, thereby consuming both
EX3 heat exchangers to heat the utility water and air respectively. CH4 and CO2 as the temperature is increased. Some previous research
Finally, the exhaust gases are cooled to 25 ◦ C in COL2, the energy also showed a similar trend on the effect of temperature on syngas
recovered, QEX is enough for the pyrolysis and drying processes energy composition [44,49,50]. Moreover, the syngas composition of this
requirement (auto-thermal)[45]. While, the energy requirement for simulation is also compared to experimental steam gasification of pine
GASIFIER unit and air compressor represented as QG, and WORKCOM bark in presence of CaO, as shown in Table 4.
respectively are subtracted from the gross energy generated in the Sorbent gasification is done to decrease the concentration of CO2 in
turbine. the syngas. The effect of increased in CaO on syngas composition is
investigated in terms of C/F (0 to 1.5) at 800 ◦ C and S/F = 0.75. From
3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Fig. 8, increasing C/F reduces CO and CO2 concentration, while
increasing content of H2 and CH4 is observed with increased in C/F.
Here, the effect of process parameters on syngas composition is This so, as CO2 is absorbed by CaO through carbonation reaction,
analysed, these parameters are temperature, Steam to Feed ratio(S/F) water gas shift reaction proceeds towards forward direction according to
and CaO to Feed ratio (C/F). Aspen Plus software has a sensitivity Le Chatelier’s principle to produces more H2. Additionally, more CO
analysis tool which is used to carry out those analyses. reacts with steam, thereby decreasing the concentration of CO as well.
The simulation was carried out at 70% RH and 30% SWPW, it is This trend is also established in previous literature involving sorbent
assumed 30% of SWPW comes from the waste generated by the workers enhanced steam gasification[51,52]. The amount of CO2 reduction as a
at the rice plant and its nearby environs. However, the effect of feed result of the presence of CaO increases with an increase in C/F, reduction
composition of 70% RH and 30% SWPW is compared to using pure RH in CO2 by 97.78% is achieved at C/F of 1.5, comparably to 21.88%
(100%) at 800 ◦ C, C/F = 0.5 and S/F = 0.75. As shown in Fig. 7, the reduction recorded at C/F of 0.5.
addition of the SWPW increases CO content from 19.06 to 23.743 vol%, In this simulation, steam is used as the gasification agent, hence, for
and H2 content from 69.37 to 71.03 vol%, while decreasing the content economic and technical reasons, the variation of Steam to Feed ratio
of CO by 57.044%. This is due to the increase in both C and H elemental between 0.5 to 1.5 is examined on the syngas composition. As shown in
composition available for the gasification processes provided by the Fig. 10, at 800 ◦ C and C/F = 0.5, increasing S/F leads to an increase in
addition of SWPW. H2 and CO2 whereas CH4 and CO decrease with increasing S/F[48,52,
Temperature is one of the critical factors that determine the 53]. The improvement in H2 and CO2 is due to the enhanced water-gas
composition of a syngas; this is so because various reactions are involved shift reactions and steam reforming, H2 increases to 73.07 vol% at S/F of
in gasification. Some of these reactions are exothermic, while others are 1.5 from 69.05 vol % at S/F of 0.5, this indicates that the process can still
endothermic, some of the main reactions are described by equation 1 to be operated at lower steam to feed ratio with an appreciable concen­
5. It is noticed from Fig. 8 that as the temperature is varied between 500 tration of H2.
and 1200 ◦ C at C/F = 0.5 and S/F = 0.75, both CO and H2 contents are
increased. By increasing the temperature, char gasification, water– gas
reactions and cracking of higher hydrocarbon are favoured due to their 3.1. SIMULATION RESULTS FROM THE POWER GENERATION
endothermic nature. However, there is a slight decrease in H2 content
after the maximum at 800 ◦ C with a value of 71.02 vol %. The high The simulation was performed at 800 ◦ C, C/F = 0.5 at and S/F =
content of H2 generally is attributed to both the presence of CaO and 0.75, with 30 kg/hr of SWPW and 70 kg/hr of RH. At assumed 8500 hr
per year, these amount to 255 tonnes of SWPW and 595 of RH. This is

Fig. 3. Nigeria’s (a) total share of primary energy supply by source in 2017 (b) share of electricity generation by source in 2017 (c) modern renewable energy share
in final energy consumption [11].

4
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

Fig. 4. Processes involved in rice milling [19,29,30].

CHP for the system can be sent to the national grid or use for other small
Table 1
scale rice milling in the same industrial cluster.
Ultimate and proximate properties of the feed.
Aside from the improved in energy efficiency offered by gasification
Feed RH SWPW of waste for CHP applications, the system also provides GHG emission
Moisture 9.88 0.00 reduction benefits. Globally, electricity and heat production generation
Proximate Analysis (dry basis)
Volatile matter 66.12 99.60 through the burning of fossil fuels constituted the highest share of GHG
Fixed carbon 14.18 0.00
emission with CO2 being the major gas [54]. Considering 0.780 Kg
Ash 19.70 0.40
C (%) 37.55 86.93
CO2/KWh [55]as the emission factor for energy generation using diesel
H (%) 4.61 16.54 back-up generator in Nigeria. Thus, a total of 3182 tCO2/year emission
Ultimate Analysis (wt%) N (%) 0.46 0.09 could be saved if replaced with the current technology. Likewise, a total
S (%) 0.012 0.12 of 12,867 tCO2/year emission reduction can be achieved if the tradi­
O (%) 37.67 1.39
tional burning of wood is considered as the displaced energy source. This
is estimated based on wood burning conversion efficiency of 12% [29],
equivalent to 2975 tonnes paddy rice per year production plant, which is energy content of 15.60 MJ/kg [29] and emission factor of 1,640 kg
categorised as small scale milling. CO2/ton [56]. This will help in mitigating the rate of deforestation in
It is important to evaluate the amount of feed as fuel converted into Nigeria and also help in meeting the country’s GHG emission reduction
useful energy. The performance parameters employed are electrical ef­ target of 45% reduction by 2030[8].
ficiency (elec), and overall combined heat and power efficiency (CHP).
Electrical efficiency is a parameter that indicates the electrical output 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
produced from the feed input (equation 6). CHP efficiency measures the
overall efficiency of the system as a result of an additional heat produced To conduct a proper economic analysis, a cash flow sheets calcula­
within the system; this is represented by equation 7. tion need to be prepared. This calculation is based on the initial capital
investment, operating cost and projected revenue generation. With this,
Pgen
ηelec = (6) economic parameters can be applied to determine the economic feasi­
MRH × LHVRH + MSWPW LHVSWPW
bility of the system (Fig. 9).
Pgen + Hgen
ηCHP = (7)
MRH × LHVRH + MSWPW LHVSWPW
4.1. TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
Where M, LHV, Pgen, Hgen represents mass flow rate, lower heating
value, net electrical power output, and heat output respectively. Total investment cost (TIC) is the initial capital cost for a plant, it
The result from the simulation shows a net electrical output of 215 comprises of direct and indirect costs. Direct cost accounts for the plant’s
kW, which gives an electrical efficiency of 34%. After the combustion of equipment and installation costs. Indirect costs include supervision,
the syngas at 1388 ◦ C, the exhaust temperatures were 931 ◦ C and 608 ◦ C preliminary engineering design, construction expenses and start-up ex­
before and after the recuperator respectively(as shown in Fig. 6). Hence, penses. The capital cost also covers working capital, land use cost and
useful thermal energy of 241 kW and 24 kW were recovered to heat the contingency. Cost of land is normally excluded from the direct cost
utility water to 85 ◦ C and utility air to 80 ◦ C respectively. These account because land does not depreciate[57]. The procedure for calculation of
to 42% thermal efficiency, thereby increasing the overall system (CHP) total investment cost is outlined in Fig. 11.
efficiency to 74%. Since 0.07 tonne of RH is used, and the heat and Equipment cost is divided into (i) cost of gasifier with cleaning unit =
electrical energy requirements for parboiling and milling of rice are 350- US$550/kW with reference capacity of 250 kW evaluated at the year
920 kWh/tonne and 25-45.5 kW h/tonne[30]. Therefore, the CHP is 2016[36] (ii) Cost of the power plant including heat exchangers, $/kW
capable of producing the energy required for the rice mill. The excess 2,580, with reference capacity of 320 kW evaluated at the year 2015
[58].

5
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

Fig. 5. Aspen flow sheet describing the gasification section.

Table 2 Table 4
Aspen plus inputs used in the gasification section. Comparison between steam gasification of pine bark with the simulation results
Unit name Block I.D. Aspen Plus Input
obtained from this study.
model name Feed Gasification Syngas composition Vol (%) Ref
temperature
temperature = 150 ◦ C
Drying DRYING RStoic H2 CO CO2 CH4
pressure = 1 atm
SEP1,2,3 pressure = 1 atm Pine bark 700 ◦ C 65.5 26.7 4.2 3.6 [47]
Separator(s) Flash2
&4 Duty = 0 kW 70% RH 700 ◦ C 69.39 20.59 7.18 2.84 This
temperature = 500 ◦ C and 30% simulation
Pyrolysis PYR1 RYield
pressure = 1 atm SWPW
temperature = 500 ◦ C
Pyrolysis PYR2 RYield
pressure = 1 atm
temperature=500-1200 ◦ C From Fig. 11, scaling exponent equation for the cost of equipment is
Gasification GASIFIER RGibbs
pressure = 1 atm
given as[59]:
Steam heat Cold stream outlet
EX1 HeatX
exchanger temperature = 200 ◦ C ( )R
COST1 SIZE1
Syngas cooling COL1 Heater
temperature = 500 ◦ C = (9)
pressure = 1 atm COST2 SIZE2

Where COST1 and COST2 are equipment cost for the present plant with
SIZE1 and reference with SIZE2 plant respectively. R = scaling factor,
Table 3
usually taken as 0.7 for a gasification system[60]
Aspen plus inputs used in the power generation section.
Also, Cost index factor equation for the cost of equipment updated to
Unit name Block I.D. Aspen Input
the year 2019 is given as [61]:
Plus name

Air compressor COMP-A Compr Isentropic compression efficiency

C1 INDEX1
= (10)
= 90%, Discharge pressure = 5 bar C2 INDEX2
Combustor COMB RStoic Pressure = 5 bar, Duty = 0 kW
Gas turbine TURBINE Compr Isentropic expansion efficiency = C1 and C2 are the cost of equipment in recent and the original year
90%, Discharge pressure = 1 bar respectively, and INDEX1 and INDEX2 are cost indexes for recent and the
Recuperator RECUPER HeatX Cold stream outlet temperature = original year respectively. INDEX = 607.5, 556.8 and 541.6 for the year
600 ◦ C 2019, 2016 and 2015 respectively [62,63].
Water utility heat EX2 HeatX Cold stream outlet temperature =
Indirect cost, contingency, working capital are assumed using the
exchange 85 ◦ C
Air utility heat EX3 HeatX Cold stream outlet temperature = methodology developed by NREL[60], so also land-use cost [64] as
exchange 80 ◦ C presented in Fig. 11.
Exhaust cooler COL2 Heater Exhaust gases cooling to 25 ◦ C The result from Fig. 12 shows a specific total investment cost of $
7773/kW, with a total installed cost (equipment) having the highest
share of 38%.

6
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

Fig. 6. Aspen flow sheet describing the power generation section.

Fig. 9. Effects of CaO/Feed on gasification of 70% RH and 30% SWPW at 800

Fig. 7. Comparison between simulation results of 70% RH- 30% SWPW and RH
◦
C and S/F = 0.75.
only at 800 ◦ C, C/F = 0.5 and S/F = 0.75.

Fig. 10. Effects of steam/feed on gasification of 70% RH and 30% SWPW at

Fig. 8. Effects of gasification temperature on gasification of 70% RH and 30% 800 ◦ C and C/F = 0.5.
SWPW at 800 ◦ C, C/F = 0.5 and S/F = 0.75.

7
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

Fig. 11. Total investment cost estimation procedure.

Fig. 12. Total investment cost result.

4.2. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) 4.3.1. Net Present Value (NPV)
NPV gives the cumulative net cash flow of a project discounted over
Operation and maintenance (O&M) consist of fixed and variable the project’s lifetime to future value. This measures the project earnings
costs. Fixed O&M are costs that are independent on production rate; after paying back the initial total capital investment, therefore, NPV >
these include salaries, maintenance, insurance, overhead and taxes. In 0 and NPV < 0 signifies gaining and loss respectively, NPV is represented
contrary, variable O&M accounts for raw materials cost, catalyst and by equation 11.
utilities cost, these are dependent on production rate.
∑t
NCFJ
For a solid processing plant, like gasification system, the number of NPV = (11)
J − Total capital investment
personnel required per processing step is four [59]. Assumption of 5 J=1 (1 + r)

times minimum salary=$ 77 per month in Nigeria is then applied[65].

Maintenance, insurance and local taxes costs are assumed as 3.04% of Where NCFJ is the net cash flow in a year j, t = 15 years, which is the
total fixed capital cost, additionally, plant overhead cost is taken as 5% lifetime of the projects and r denotes the discount rate (interest rate), set
of total O&M [57]. as 10%.
Prices of RH, SWPH and CaO are taken as $20 per ton [66], $0.05 per
Kg [67] and $20 per ton[68] respectively, but CaO is replaced in every 3 4.3.2. Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
years [60] utilities are assumed as 10% of total O&M[57]. IRR is the discount rate that will make NPV zero by end of the project
operational period. This measures the maximum interest rate at which
4.3. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS the project will maintain for it to break even, IRR is expressed by
equation 12. For both NPV and IRR calculation, NPV and IRR function in
The purpose of investment in any project is to earn profit in returns. MICROSOFT EXCEL are used.
Thus, some key economic parameters are applied to measure the eco­ ∑t
NCFJ
nomic attractiveness of a project at the preliminary stage. These pa­ IRR = J − Total capital investment = 0 (12)
J=1 (1 + r)
rameters include net present value, internal rate of return, payback
period and levelized cost of electricity.
4.3.3. Payback period (PBP)
PBP is the period required to pay off the initial total investment of the

8
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

project from the income

Total investment cost
PBB = (13)
Annual income

4.3.4. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

LCOE represents the ratio of discounted (NPV) of the total cost to
discounted (NPV) of the total power generated over the project opera­
tional lifetime. By interpretation, LCOE translates to the minimum price
at which the power must be sold for the project to break-even. LCOE is
expressed by equation 14 in cost per MWh or kWh.
/
∑ t
CostJ ∑ t
Energy
J J (14)
J=1 (1 + r) J=1 (1 + r)

4.3.5. Economic Analysis Results Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis result based on yearly plant availability.
The economic analysis of the project within 15 years of projected
operation period is shown in Fig. 13, the PBP of the project is 6 years
with an NPV of $1.68 million. Meaning, after the break-even period, the
project can make a profit of $1.68 million. This is equivalent to 89%
accumulated profit based on the initial capital investment, which rep­
resents 5.98% return on investment annually.

4.4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sensitivity analysis allows the understanding of how uncertainties in

terms of changes in feed cost, plant yearly availability or government
policy would affect key economic investment decisions. Sensitivity
analysis is important in setting the limit at which the project plant must
operate to break even.
From Fig. 14, the sensitivity analysis on the yearly plant availability
between 4500 to 7500 hrs indicated that the plant can only operate only
Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis result based on the variation of feed price.
above 5500 hrs for it to make a profit. The project can withstand an
interest rate as high as 22%.
Similarly, Fig. 15 showed that the gasification feed (RH and SWPW) the high cost of diesel as a fuel, thereby making the operating cost
can go as high as 750% increment in price. Only above this price, the expensive over the lifetime. LCOE of other alternative sources of energy
project will not break even. Thus, meaning that key economic parame­ in Nigeria includes $0.203-0.252/kWh for Jatropha biodiesel[7],
ters are less sensitive to change in the price of the feed. This emphasis the $0.110/kWh for hybrid PV-wind-diesel[70] $0.566 /kWh for hybrid
benefit of using waste as feed for the gasification system, which has the PV-diesel. even though, national grid energy sources from hydropower
advantage of low cost. The benefit also includes solving environmental and natural plants in Nigeria have been the most competitive cost in
challenges of waste management as well. terms of LCOE, with values ranges between $0.05 and 0.07/kWh[69].
From both Figs. 14 and 15, the analysis shows that LCOE of the However, the lack of access from the national gird makes it an unreliable
project ranges between $0.07 to 0.11/kWh. Comparably, this is lower source of energy.
than the LCOE of diesel generator for power generation with values
between $0.28 to $0.33/kW h[69]. Although, the capital cost of a diesel 5. CONCLUSIONS
engine is $270 /kW, which is relatively low when compared with $
7773/kW (this study). The high LCOE of the diesel engine is as a result of Steam co-gasification of rice husk (RH) and sachet water plastic

Fig. 13. Economic analysis result.

9
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

waste (SWPW) in the presence of CaO for CHP application was presented [8] USAID, Greenhouse gas emissions by sector, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264213715-graph25-en.
in this study. The system was modelled using Aspen plus. In the gasifi­
[9] UNEP, Converting waste agricultural biomass into a resource, 2009.
cation section, optimum operating conditions were determined as inputs [10] A.S. Sambo, Strategic Developments In Renewable Energy In Nigeria, International
to the power section. Subsequently, the simulation for CHP application Association for Energy Econonmics (2000) 15–19.
was performed at 800 ◦ C, CaO/Feed = 0.5 at and S/F = 0.75, with 30 [11] International Energy Agency (IEA). World energy balances and statistics – Data
services, IEA, 2019.
kg/hr of SWPW and 70 kg/hr of RH. The result showed an electrical [12] USDA, Nigeria: Grain and Feed Annual, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2019.
energy output of 215 kW at an efficiency of 34%, with an additional [13] M. Johnson, I. Masias, Assessing the State of the Rice Milling Sector in Nigeria,
useful thermal energy of 241 kW, thereby increasing the overall (CHP) Working Paper 40 of International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016.
[14] G. Okpiaifo, A. Durand-Morat, G.H. West, L.L. Nalley, R.M. Nayga, E.J. Wailes,
efficiency to 74%. The energy generated is more than rice mill energy Consumers’ preferences for sustainable rice practices in Nigeria, Global Food
requirement with a capacity of 70 kg/hr of RH, which is categorised as Security (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100345.
small scale rice mill. The excess CHP for the system can be sent to the [15] BBC, Boosting rice production in Nigeria, BBC News, 2019.
[16] L. George, A growing problem: Nigerian rice farmers fall short after borders close,
national grid or use for other small scale rice milling in the same in­ Reuters, 2020.
dustrial cluster. [17] A.S. Ajala, A. Gana, Analysis of Challenges Facing Rice Processing in Nigeria,
The economic analysis of the project was then analysed, were Net Journal of Food Processing (2015), https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/893673.
[18] United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agriculture Service.
Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Levelized Cost of Nigeria Grain and Feed Annual 2019 Nigeria’s Imports of Wheat and Rice to Rise,
electricity (LCOE) are used as parameters to evaluate the economic 2018.
feasibility of the project. From the analysis, the total specific investment [19] M. Ahiduzzaman, A.K.M. Sadrul Islam, Energy utilization and environmental
aspects of rice processing industries in Bangladesh, Energies (2009), https://doi.
cost of the system (gasification and power plant) is $ 7773/kW. The
org/10.3390/en20100134.
project showed economic attractiveness of an NPV value of $1.68 [20] E.M. Kwofie, M. Ngadi, Sustainable energy supply for local rice parboiling in West
million over 15 years of projected lifetime with a payback period of 6 Africa: The potential of rice husk, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
years and IRR of 24%. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the LCOE of the (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.030.
[21] P.T. Mai Thao, K.H. Kurisu, K. Hanaki, Greenhouse gas emission mitigation
system ranges between $0.07/kWh and $0.11/kWh, which is compar­ potential of rice husks for An Giang province, Vietnam, Biomass and Bioenergy,
atively low when compared with other alternative sources of energy 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.023.
such as diesel generator in Nigeria. Additionally, the system demon­ [22] E. Dumbili, L. Henderson, The challenge of plastic pollution in Nigeria. Plastic
Waste and Recycling, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 569–583, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
strated that 3182 tCO2/year and 12,867 tCO2/year emissions saving 0-12-817880-5.00022-0.
could be achieved if diesel fuel generator and traditional burning of [23] B. Salman, M.Y. Ong, S. Nomanbhay, A.A. Salema, R. Sankaran, P.L. Show,
wood are displaced as the source of energy respectively. Besides, cost Thermal analysis of nigerian oil palm biomass with sachet-water plasticwastes for
sustainable production of biofuel, Processes (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/
and GHG emission benefits of the system, the adaptation of the tech­ pr7070475.
nology will promote Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) in Nigeria, [24] F.I. Nwabue, U. Unah, E.J. Itumoh, Production and characterization of smokeless
where carbon credits can be traded as earnings. bio-coal briquettes incorporating plastic waste materials, Environmental
Technology and Innovation (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2017.02.008.
[25] P. Basu, Biomass gasification and pyrolysis - Practical Design and Theory, 2010,
6. Author statement https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374988-8.00001-5.
[26] N. Gao, K. Kamran, C. Quan, P.T. Williams, Thermochemical conversion of sewage
sludge: A critical review, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (2020),
Jamilu Salisu: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100843.
Original draft preparation [27] Y.A. Situmorang, Z. Zhao, A. Yoshida, A. Abudula, G. Guan, Small-scale biomass
Ningbo Gao: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, gasification systems for power generation (<200 kW class): A review, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 117 (2020), 109486, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Supervision, rser.2019.109486.
Cui Quan: Writing - review & editing, Investigation, Project [28] EPA, Fuel and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Savings Calculation Methodology for
administration. Combined Heat and Power Systems, 2015.
[29] E.M. Kwofie, M. Ngadi, A review of rice parboiling systems, energy supply, and
consumption, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.014.
Declaration of Competing Interest [30] S.K. Goyal, S.V. Jogdand, A.K. Agrawal, Energy use pattern in rice milling
industries—a critical appraisal, Journal of Food Science and Technology (2014),
The authors report no declarations of interest. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-0747-3.
[31] A. Porcu, S. Sollai, D. Marotto, M. Mureddu, F. Ferrara, A. Pettinau, Techno-
economic analysis of a small-scale biomass-to-energy BFB gasification-based
Acknowledgement system, Energies (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030494.
[32] S. Safarian, R. Unnthorsson, C. Richter, Techno-Economic Analysis of Power
Production by Using Waste Biomass Gasification, Journal of Power and Energy
The authors would like to appreciate the PhD study sponsorship of Engineering 8 (2020) 1.
Mr Salisu by Petroleum Technology Development Fund, Nigeria (PTDF/ [33] G.M. Sobamowo, S.J. Ojolo, Techno-Economic Analysis of Biomass Energy
Utilization through Gasification Technology for Sustainable Energy Production and
ED/PHD/PJS/33/18), the Key Program for China-EU International
Economic Development in Nigeria, Journal of Energy (2018), https://doi.org/
Cooperation in Science and Technology Innovation (No. 10.1155/2018/4860252.
2018YFE0117300), Shaanxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation [34] M. Ozonoh, T.C. Aniokete, B.O. Oboirien, M.O. Daramola, Techno-economic
Research Program-Shaanxi Coal Joint Funding (2019JLZ-12). analysis of electricity and heat production by co-gasification of coal, biomass and
waste tyre in South Africa, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.209.
References [35] T. Voets, T. Kuppens, T. Cornelissen, T. Thewys, Economics of electricity and heat
production by gasification or flash pyrolysis of short rotation coppice in Flanders
(Belgium), Biomass and Bioenergy (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[1] N. Edomah, Governing sustainable industrial energy use: Energy transitions in
biombioe.2011.01.034.
Nigeria’s manufacturing sector, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), https://doi.
[36] P.W. Olupot, A. Candia, E. Menya, R. Walozi, Characterization of rice husk
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.052.
varieties in Uganda for biofuels and their techno-economic feasibility in
[2] BP, BP Energy Outlook 2019, edition, 2019.
gasification, Chemical Engineering Research and Design (2016), https://doi.org/
[3] Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy (2019).
10.1016/j.cherd.2015.11.010.
[4] BP, Full report – BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, 2019.
[37] Malek ABMA, M. Hasanuzzaman, N.A. Rahim, Y.A. Al Turki, Techno-economic
[5] IndexMundi, Electricity consumption per capita - Country Comparison, 2019
analysis and environmental impact assessment of a 10 MW biomass-based power
(accessed March 10, 2020), https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=81000.
plant in Malaysia, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/
[6] International Energy Agency (IEA). Nigeria Energy Outlook – Analysis, IEA, 2019
j.jclepro.2016.09.057.
(accessed March 9, 2020), https://www.iea.org/articles/nigeria-energy-outlook.
[38] S. You, H. Tong, J. Armin-Hoiland, Y.W. Tong, C.H. Wang, Techno-economic and
[7] T.O. Somorin, A.J. Kolios, Prospects of deployment of Jatropha biodiesel-fired
greenhouse gas savings assessment of decentralized biomass gasification for
plants in Nigeria’s power sector, Energy (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.06.152.

10
J. Salisu et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 158 (2021) 105157

electrifying the rural areas of Indonesia, Applied Energy (2017), https://doi.org/ of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power (2008), https://doi.org/10.1115/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.001. 1.2747252.
[39] U. Arena, F. Di Gregorio, M. Santonastasi, A techno-economic comparison between [52] A. Inayat, M.M. Ahmad, S. Yusup, M.I.A. Mutalib, Biomass steam gasification with
two design configurations for a small scale, biomass-to-energy gasification based in-situ CO2 capture for enriched hydrogen gas production: A reaction kinetics
system, Chemical Engineering Journal (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. modelling approach, Energies (2010), https://doi.org/10.3390/en3081472.
cej.2010.05.067. [53] P.C. Kuo, W. Wu, Design, optimization and energetic efficiency of producing
[40] J. Salisu, M. MB, M. Bello, N. Yusuf, A. Atta, B. IM, Performance Evaluation of hydrogen-rich gas from biomass steam gasification, Energies (2015), https://doi.
Downdraft Gasifier for Syngas Production using Rice Husk, 2015. org/10.3390/en8010094.
[41] X. Xiao, X. Wang, Z. Zheng, W. Qin, Y. Zhou, Catalytic coal gasification process [54] US Energy Protection Agency, Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, 2014.
simulation with alkaline organicwastewater in a fluidized bed reactor using aspen [55] RETScreen 2020. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tools-publications/tools/data
plus, Energies (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/en12071367. -analysis-software-modelling/retscreen/7465 (accessed October 23, 2020).
[42] W. Lan, G. Chen, X. Zhu, X. Wang, C. Liu, B. Xu, Biomass gasification-gas turbine [56] EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Direct Emissions from Stationary
combustion for power generation system model based on ASPEN PLUS, Science of Combustion Sources, 2016.
the Total Environment (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.159. [57] M. Scott, Technical Economic Analysis Guide, DRAFT, 2015.
[43] S. Rupesh, C. Muraleedharan, P. Arun, ASPEN plus modelling of air–steam [58] EPA, Catalog of CHP Technologies, Section 3, Technology Characterization –
gasification of biomass with sorbent enabled CO2 capture, Resource-Efficient Combustion Turbines, 2015.
Technologies (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reffit.2016.07.002. [59] J. Sadhukhan, K.S. Ng, E.M. Hernandez, Biorefineries and Chemical Processes:
[44] M. Shahbaz, S. Yusup, A. Inayat, M. Ammar, D.O. Patrick, A. Pratama, et al., Design, Integration and Sustainability Analysis, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/
Syngas Production from Steam Gasification of Palm Kernel Shell with Subsequent 9781118698129.
CO2 Capture Using CaO Sorbent: An Aspen Plus Modeling, Energy and Fuels [60] R.M. Swanson, J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, A. Platon, D.D. Hsu, Techno-Economic
(2017), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02670. Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification, 2010.
[45] T. Damartzis, S. Michailos, A. Zabaniotou, Energetic assessment of a combined heat [61] R. Smith, Chemical Process Design and Integration, 2005, https://doi.org/
and power integrated biomass gasification-internal combustion engine system by 10.1529/biophysj.107.124164.
using Aspen Plus®, Fuel Processing Technology (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [62] S. Jenkins, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index: 2018 Annual Value - Chemical
fuproc.2011.11.010. Engineering, 2019.
[46] J. Andersson, J. Lundgren, Techno-economic analysis of ammonia production via [63] S. Jenkins, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index Annual Average - Chemical
integrated biomass gasification, Applied Energy (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/ Engineering, 2019, p. 2020.
j.apenergy.2014.02.029. [64] Y. Zhang, T.R. Brown, G. Hu, R.C. Brown, Comparative techno-economic analysis
[47] M.R. Mahishi, D.Y. Goswami, An experimental study of hydrogen production by of biohydrogen production via bio-oil gasification and bio-oil reforming, Biomass
gasification of biomass in the presence of a CO2 sorbent, International Journal of and Bioenergy (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.01.013.
Hydrogen Energy (2007), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.03.030. [65] Statista, Nigeria: minimum wage 2018-2020, 2020 (accessed September 12, 2020),
[48] B. Acharya, A. Dutta, P. Basu, An investigation into steam gasification of biomass https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119133/monthly-minimum-wage-in-nigeri
for hydrogen enriched gas production in presence of CaO, International Journal of a/.
Hydrogen Energy (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.109. [66] IRENA, Biomass for Power Generation, 2012.
[49] L. Zhou, Z. Yang, A. Tang, H. Huang, D. Wei, E. Yu, et al., Steam-gasification of [67] IRENA, Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series - Biomass for Power
biomass with CaO as catalyst for hydrogen-rich syngas production, Journal of the Generation, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-098330-1.00011-9.
Energy Institute (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.01.010. [68] Alibaba, CaO price Suppliers and Manufacturers at Alibaba.com, 2020 (accessed
[50] K.N. Dhanavath, K. Shah, S.K. Bhargava, S. Bankupalli, R. Parthasarathy, Oxygen- September 12, 2020), https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/cao-price.html.
steam gasification of karanja press seed cake: Fixed bed experiments, ASPEN Plus [69] P.O. Oviroh, T.C. Jen, The energy cost analysis of hybrid systems and diesel
process model development and benchmarking with saw dust, rice husk and generators in powering selected base transceiver station locations in Nigeria,
sunflower husk, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering (2018), https:// Energies (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030687.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.04.046. [70] S. Salisu, M.W. Mustafa, L. Olatomiwa, O.O. Mohammed, Assessment of technical
[51] M.R. Mahishi, M.S. Sadrameli, S. Vijayaraghavan, D.Y. Goswami, A novel approach and economic feasibility for a hybrid PV-wind-diesel-battery energy system in a
to enhance the hydrogen yield of biomass gasification using CO2 sorbent, Journal remote community of north central Nigeria, Alexandria Engineering Journal
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.013.

11