Assessing The Utilization of Palm Oil Mill Effluent in Photovoltaic and Biogas Hybrid Energy System For Off-Grid Village
Assessing The Utilization of Palm Oil Mill Effluent in Photovoltaic and Biogas Hybrid Energy System For Off-Grid Village
Assessing The Utilization of Palm Oil Mill Effluent in Photovoltaic and Biogas Hybrid Energy System For Off-Grid Village
Corresponding Author:
Ayong Hiendro
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanjungpura University
Street Prof. Dr. H. Hadari Nawawi, Pontianak 78124, West Kalimantan, Indonesia
Email: ayong.hiendro@ee.untan.ac.id
1. INTRODUCTION
Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is a tropical tree crop that has higher productivity than other oil-
producing vegetation [1]. Oil palm trees are cultivated crops in Southeast Asia, Africa, America, and
Oceania [2], [3]. Oil palm plantations are widely grown in Indonesia covering an area of more than
15 million hectares, especially in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua (as seen in Figure 1), and they
are still growing rapidly.
In Indonesia, the sources of oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFB) usually come from nucleus estates
and smallholder plantations (NES) [4]. Palm oil mills extract crude palm oil (CPO) from the FFB. Processing
FFB into CPO produces large amounts of solid and liquid waste, which is rich in organic substrates and it can
be reprocessed into biomass fuel products, such as bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas [5]. Solid biomass waste
mainly comes from oil palm shells, mesocarp fibers, and empty fruit bunches, while abundant liquid biomass
waste is generated by palm oil mill effluent (POME). Palm oil biomass waste, both solid and liquid, has great
potential as a valuable energy provider and, at the same time, reduces the environmental impact caused by
waste disposal [6].
The development of small-scale biomass power generation has very good prospects, especially for
remote areas, by utilizing the potential of existing biomass resources in the local area. Another advantage of
biomass is that it is easy to store and much less sensitive to climatic conditions compared to other renewable
sources, such as wind and solar energy [7]. The obstacles faced in operating a sustainable biomass power
plant are the availability of supply and competitive prices of biomass. However, oil palm biomass sources are
generally available and concentrated in several places, such as in oil palm mill areas and oil palm plantation
sites, so that the sustainability of biomass energy will not be hampered by the availability of raw materials. In
terms of oil palm biomass, the price of oil palm shells continues to increase every year due to the high
demand in the global market. Likewise, oil palm mesocarp fibers and empty fruit bunches (in the form of
fibers and pellets) have been used commercially as biomass fuels for steam boilers in biomass power plants.
POME is a source of oil palm biomass with the most negligible economic value compared to palm oil solid
waste. POME is produced from the sterilization and clarification process of CPO from FFB, and it is an
abundant and sustainable source of palm oil biomass energy. Increasing CPO production from palm oil mills
will definitely increase the amount of POME biomass. The liquid waste becomes a source of serious
environmental problems produced by the palm oil industry due to the high concentration of oxidizable
organic matter [8]. Nevertheless, POME can be converted into biogas fuel through the gasification process,
purified, and then used as a renewable gaseous fuel for biogas engines to generate electricity [9]. From
several POME processing technologies, the biodigester through an anaerobic process is an effective effluent
method to produce biogas [10]. Anaerobic biogas contains about 45%-75% methane, with the remainder
being carbon dioxide and small amounts of other gases. According to reports [11], [12], one cubic meter of
biogas can produce about 2.5-3.0 kWh of electrical energy.
Hybrid renewable energy systems are more flexible and economical than single renewable energy
systems for remote areas far from the power grid [13]. Moreover, hybrid systems are usually designed to
ensure sustainable power generation to serve electricity needs by integrating several complementary single
power plants. Therefore, to meet the need for sustainable and economical electrical energy, biomass can be
integrated with wind or solar energy sources. Solar energy technologies are associated with high investment
costs and renewable intermittency, while biomass power generations require a large supply of fuel which
must be available at all times. However, the combination of solar and biomass energy will be a reliable
energy investment and it is projected to be able to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions due to its
availability in most parts of the world [14].
There are two common hybrid scenarios for combining solar and biomass to generate electricity,
i.e., concentrated solar power (CSP)-biomass combustion and photovoltaic (PV)-biomass gasification. In the
CSP-biomass combustion scenario, the CSP collects heat from solar energy, while biomass is burned to
produce heat. The heat is then used to rise high-temperature steam and drive a turbine through a
thermodynamic process in an external combustion system to produce electricity. The hybrid CSP-biomass
combustion can be arranged to generate steam [15], [16] or use an integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) [17], [18] for electricity generation. The biomass sources that are burned as the primary fuel
generally come from solid wastes, such as rice husk [19], wood chips [20], food waste [21], sugarcane
bagasse [22], animal manure [23], oil palm kernel shell, mesocarp fiber, and empty fruit bunches. In the PV-
biomass gasification scenario, the PV panels directly convert solar energy into electricity, while biogas from
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)
456 ISSN: 2088-8694
biomass gasification is used for a biogas-fueled generator or a micro gas turbine generator [24] to generate
electricity through an internal combustion system.
Furthermore, gasification-based biomass for electricity generation typically results in significantly
lower pollutant emissions compared to the external combustion of biomass. The gas engine will contribute to
carbon dioxide reduction by high-efficiency operation using biogas. Ruiz et al. [25] recommended using
gasification techniques for installed electric power of less than 2 MWe, whereas external combustion systems
were considered to be more reliable for applications between 2 and 10 MWe. According to economic
viability, Pantaleo et al. [15] found low economic profitability of hybrid CSP-biomass combustion compared
to biomass power generations due to the high investment costs of the large CSP size. On the other hand, a
hybrid system from PV and biomass gasification showed very feasibly if the renewable energy gave 50% of
the electricity contribution [26]. Higher electricity contribution required more biomass supply which
increased the cost of electricity. The cost of electricity from biomass became expensive due to the price of
biomass, especially when using commercial biomass sources. Al-Ghussain et al. [27] determined the optimal
size of a PV/wind/biomass hybrid system with integrated energy storage to meet almost 99% of the
electricity demand. Another study on hybrid PV-biomass gasification [28] reported that the hybrid renewable
system was the most economical and reliable for rural areas when the biomass supply was free and always
available. The hybrid PV-biomass gasification would become an attractive option as the costs of photovoltaic
fell and free biomass waste was available in abundance. Another consideration for using PV technology was
that PV was much cheaper than CSP in implementation.
The aforementioned works showed a limited focus on resource assessment and modeling for energy
and exergy analysis on solar and biomass for hybridization. In this study, a hybrid renewable energy system
that combines PV and biomass gasification for a small-scale power plant was modeled and optimized to
generate electricity and serve load demands continuously. The main contribution of this study was to propose
an optimal PV/biogas hybrid system to serve the village community in a palm oil mill according to electrical,
economic, and environmental aspects. Biogas from the digestion of POME was used as fuel in a biogas-
fueled generator. The biogas-fueled generator was chosen because it had a relatively low implementation cost
and high electrical efficiency compared to gas turbines and micro-turbines [29].
2. RESEARCH METHOD
2.1. PV/biogas hybrid system
In order to study the PV/biogas hybrid system, the configuration as shown in Figure 2 is constructed
using HOMER software. Hybrid optimization of multiple energy resources (HOMER) is a hybrid power
optimization software for designing and optimizing village power, island utilities, and grid-connected
systems. It is mainly used for the design and analysis of microgrid and hybrid power systems in order to
achieve technically optimal and maximum cost-effective configurations.
The load profile of a palm oil mill village is presented in Figure 3. The most common electricity-
consuming devices used by villagers in palm oil mills are lights, televisions, fans, electric irons, and water
pumps. The load profile has a peak load of 20 kW with an average energy consumption of 159.65 kWh/day.
The average demand load is about 6.65 kW with a load factor of 0.33. Rural communities are generally
characterized by a low load factor [30] due to a more varied demand load. There are periods of high demand
load and low electricity utilization leading to a low load factor.
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 454-465
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 457
In this study, POME as the biomass feedstock is produced by a palm oil mill with a processing
capacity of 30 tonnes/hour, and the palm oil mill can create 400 m 3 of POME on daily basis. The price of
POME is assumed to be zero because the waste biomass is freely available around the palm oil mill. POME
contains about 96% water, a small amount of oil, and suspended solids from fruit debris [31]. Since POME is
a carbon-neutral energy source that produces biogas through an anaerobic digester technology, the net carbon
content of POME is typically near zero. Although the combustion of biogas produces carbon dioxide and
returns that carbon to the atmosphere, the carbon in POME is initially absorbed from the atmosphere.
The biogas fuel is produced from POME biomass utilizing sequential processes to upgrade and purify
it from moisture (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other contaminants,
such as siloxane and volatile organic compound (VOC) [32], [33] as seen in Figure 4. According to the
previous study in [34], one tonne of POME can produce approximately 29 m3 of biogas with a gasification
ratio of 0.03, and typically the price for POME-based biogas production is $0.2 per m3. The biogas fuel used in
this study has a density of 1.18 kg/m3 and a lower heating value (LHV) of 22 MJ/kg [35].
The capital cost of a biodigester generally depends on the volume of the digester to accommodate
the total amount of POME and its retention time. The digester volume (in m 3) for small-scale biogas
production can be calculated as (1).
𝐷𝑉 = 𝐹𝑇 . 𝑅𝑇 (1)
Where FT is the flow rate of POME (in m3/day), and RT is the retention time of POME (in day). The retention
time is the amount of time required by POME to stay in the anaerobic digester. The retention time for
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)
458 ISSN: 2088-8694
processing POME into commercial biogas is about 20 days, while using an open ponding system takes 40-65
days [36]. The capital cost for the biodigester, including installation, processing, and piping, is approximately
$300/m3 [37], and the O&M cost is assumed to be 1% of the capital cost, as presented in Table 1. The capital
cost of the biodigester in HOMER is included as the system fixed capital cost.
A biogas-fueled generator is the combination of a biogas engine with an electric generator to
generate electricity. The electrical power output (in kW) of a biogas-fueled generator is defined as (2) [29].
𝐿𝐻𝑉.𝑄𝐵𝑅 .𝜂𝐵𝐺
𝑃𝐵𝐺 = (2)
𝛾𝑖 .𝐶𝐹
Where LHV is the lower heating value of biogas (in MJ/m 3), QBR is the biogas consumed by BG (in m3/h),
and ηBG is the BG efficiency, γi is the conversion factor (3.5714 MJ/kWh), and CF is the capacity factor. The
BG is applied to run in a particular time step. The BG fuel intercept coefficient and slope are taken from its
performance data and fuel consumption curve (as seen in Figure 5), which give a fuel intercept coefficient of
0.0475 kg/h/kW rated and a fuel slope of 0.5025 kg/h/kW output. In the simulation, a 20 kW BG is applied to
meet the peak load. The BG is set to operate at a minimum load of 25% and has 15000 hours of operation
lifetime. The capital and replacement costs for the BG are $500/kW and $450/kW, respectively. This
investment includes preparation, labor, installation, and other regulatory costs. The operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost per operation hour is set at $0.03/kW [38], as summarized in Table 1.
A PV array functions as a converter of solar radiation into electricity. The data collected from solar
radiation and ambient temperature, along with the orientation angle, are then used to compute the electricity
output of the PV array. The electrical power output (in kW) of a PV array is defined as (3):
𝐺𝑇
𝑃𝑃𝑉 = 𝑓𝑃𝑉 . 𝑓𝑇. . 𝑃𝑃𝑉,𝑆𝑇𝐶 (3)
𝐺𝑇,𝑆𝑇𝐶
where fPV is the derating factor that reduces the output of a PV array due to dirt, dust, shading, aging, wiring,
and others, while fT, GT, GT, STC, and PPV, STC are the derating factor due to increasing PV cell temperature, the
total solar radiation incidents on a tilted surface of the PV array (in kW/m 2), the solar radiation at a standard
test condition in kW/m2), and the rated capacity of the PV array (in kW), respectively. The standard test
condition (STC) is the solar PV panel output testing condition used by most manufacturers and defined as the
testing under a cell temperature of 25 °C and solar radiation of 1 kW/m2 with an air mass of 1.5.
The hybrid system is designed to use mono-crystalline PV panels with a nominal operating cell
temperature of 25 °C and a temperature coefficient of power of -0.43%/°C. The temperature effect is also
taken into account as the annual average temperature is 26.19°C at the site and it is higher than the nominal
operating cell temperature. The PV panel power output will decrease by about 0.43% with the increase in cell
temperature per °C from the nominal operating cell temperature. The PV mounting system is installed to an
optimal tilt angle of 1.69° facing due north to maximize the solar radiation harvesting in Pontianak [39]. The
cost of PV panels is based on the market price in Indonesia. The price of a PV panel has fallen since 2013
[40] to about half of its price by 2022. The capital cost for the PV arrays is $550/kW, including preparation,
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 454-465
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 459
labor, installation, and other regulatory costs, as provided in Table 1. The replacement cost is assumed to
drop 60% after 25 years. The annual O&M cost is for dirt cleaning and PV arrays adjustment.
The inverter commonly used in a PV/battery system is a hybrid converter, which combines PV
inverter and battery inverter in a single unit. The hybrid inverter converts alternating current (AC) and direct
current (DC) interchangeably. In the hybrid system, there are two different types of electrical current, AC
from BG and DC from PV arrays and batteries, but the output from the inverter to supply the electrical loads
is AC. The inverter capacity is often equal to or less than the installed PV capacity to minimize costs. The
other reason is that PV arrays do not always operate at full power. The inverter price is $250/kW at scale, and
the replacement cost is taken to be $225/kW. The lifetime of the inverter is 15 years with zero maintenance
cost and an efficiency of 96%. A brief summary of the inverter costs is presented in Table 1.
A battery is a device used to store electrical energy for later use in order to reduce the mismatch
between electricity generation and demand. The power output (in kW) of a battery can be calculated as (4) [41].
𝑇
𝑃𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡 = . 𝑃𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (4)
𝐷𝑂𝐷.𝜂𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡 .𝜂𝐷𝐶−𝐴𝐶
Where PLoad is the AC electrical load (in kW), while T, DOD, ηBatt, and ηDC-AC are the battery backup time,
depth of discharge, battery efficiency, and DC-to-AC conversion efficiency, respectively. The most widely
available battery technology in the Indonesian market is the valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA) battery [42].
The VRLA battery needs less maintenance as no electrolyte is added during the battery life. The maintenance
is carried out for routine functional testing and cleaning to prevent premature failure and extend the battery
lifespan. In this study, the battery chosen is a 200 Ah, 12-V VRLA battery. This type of battery can be
operated up to a DOD of 80% without shortening the working life of the battery. Operating at a DOD of 70%
with a roundtrip efficiency of 80%, the battery life cycle can achieve 2000 cycles with an energy throughput
of 1120 kWh. The battery price is $130/kWh based on the local market in Indonesia, and the replacement
cost is assumed to be equal to the capital cost with the O&M cost of $0.01/kWh/yr. The battery costs is
provided in Table 1.
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)
460 ISSN: 2088-8694
capacity factor of BG is higher than that of PV. As a consequence, the BG produces more electricity than the
PV to serve the total demand loads. The capacity factor indicates that the average power output of BG is
higher than the output from PV. This is because the PV only generates electricity during the day when solar
radiation is sufficient. Batteries, as energy storage, capture excess electricity generated by the PV. When the
electricity from the PV output is low, the batteries and BG complement it. The batteries and BG become very
useful to serve the demand loads on cloudy, rainy, or foggy days as well as at night. In the optimized
PV/biogas system, the battery bank with a nominal capacity of 80 kWh captures surplus electricity from PV
of approximately 16,693 kWh/year and delivers 13,373 kWh/year for demand loads. The safe operating state
of charge (SOC) of batteries is maintained in the range between 30% and 100%, as shown in Figure 9. The
annual throughput of the batteries is 14,951 kWh/year, with a battery autonomy of 8.5 hours.
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 454-465
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 461
COE are calculated for both PV/biogas and standalone biogas. The standalone biogas system is considered as
a base case. Next, comparisons are made in terms of total NPC, COE, and total annualized cost.
The simulation results show that the total NPC and COE of the standalone biogas system are
estimated at $169,479.30 and $0.2250, respectively. In contrast, the total NPC of the proposed PV/biogas
system is estimated at $111,393.50 with a COE of $0.1479/kWh. The capital cost of the PV/biogas system is
estimated at $59,232, and it is higher than above-mentioned standalone biogas system costing $34,000
because there are additional costs for PV and batteries. However, in terms of the total NPC and COE, the
standalone biogas system is higher than the aforementioned hybrid system due to the high O&M and
replacement costs. In the standalone biogas system, the BG requires 8,760 operating hours annually to meet a
demand load of 58,272 kWh/year. On the other hand, the BG in PV/biogas system needs 2,221 operating
hours per year. In this case, with a BG lifetime of 15,000 operating hours, the standalone biogas system
requires a higher replacement cost than the PV/biogas system over the 25 years project lifetime. The
annualized cost of the standalone biogas system is tabulated in Table 4. The total annualized cost of the
standalone biogas system is about $13,109.96/year. The total annualized cost of the PV/biogas system is
estimated at $8,616.77, and the annualized cost breakdown of each component is presented in Table 5. It is
clear that hybridization of the biogas system with another renewable energy resource, such as a PV system,
has the beneficiary of reducing the total NPC and COE of the energy generation system.
Compared to an electricity tariff, the COE of the PV/biogas system is 35.77% higher than the
Indonesian electricity tariff for households of $0.095/kWh in 2022. This low electricity tariff is cross-
subsidized based on the cost of electricity production by various regions in Indonesia, which ranges between
$0.0625/kWh and $0.1925/kWh. The highest electricity production costs occur in islands, mountains, and
other small sub-system power plants in Indonesia. However, the COE of the PV/biogas system is still 30.16%
lower than the highest cost of electricity production in Indonesia. The high investment cost of the PV/biogas
system is influenced by the high cost of the biogas system. The installation costs for the biodigester that are
necessary to obtain biogas from POME biomass are relatively expensive. In this case, the NPC of PV/biogas
is dominated by a biogas system (59.96%) which comprises of biodigester and BG costs, as shown in
Figure 10. Nevertheless, observations on the COE of PV/biogas systems in different countries show that the
PV/biogas system using POME is very competitive with the PV/biogas system using solid biomass, as
reported in [44]. It indicates that PV/biogas using POME has a good prospect for electrifying the village
communities in palm oil mills with no electricity connecting to the national grid.
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)
462 ISSN: 2088-8694
HOMER uses simple payback, internal rate of return (IRR), and return on investment (ROI) as
economic metrics. Simple payback is the length of time when money saved after the renovation will cover
the investment [45]. To show how the hybrid energy system saves money over the project lifetime, HOMER
uses the simple payback to determine the number of years it would take to recover the difference in
investment costs between two energy systems. One energy system has a low capital cost and a high O&M
cost, whereas another energy system has a high capital cost and a low O&M cost. In this case, the standalone
biogas system has a low investment cost and a high O&M cost. On the other hand, the PV/biogas system has
a high investment cost but a low O&M cost. Therefore, the simple payback occurs at the time when the
cumulative cash flow of the difference between the two energy systems shifts from negative to positive, as
seen in Figure 11. Figure 11 shows that the PV/biogas system and the standalone biogas system are referred
as the lowest-cost system and the base case, respectively. As a result, the payback period is 3.4 years.
The IRR is calculated by determining the discount rate at which the standalone biogas system and
the PV/biogas system have the same net present cost. Furthermore, the ROI is obtainable after dividing the
average yearly difference in nominal cash flows over the project lifetime by the difference in capital cost. By
comparing the PV/biogas system with the standalone biogas system, the IRR and the ROI are 26% and 21%,
respectively.
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 454-465
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 463
PV penetrations. Table 6 also shows that the emissions are dominated by CO and NO x. However, the use of
biogas allows exhaust CO and NOx emissions to be reduced significantly compared to gasoline and natural gas
[48]. In addition, integrating PV into the biogas system also helps decrease CO, HC, PM, and NO x emissions
to the environment that are harmful to human health. Consequently, the PV/biogas hybrid system contributes a
great environmental benefit in generating clean electricity [49].
4. CONCLUSION
In this study, an optimal PV/biogas hybrid system was proposed for village electrification. The use
of POME to produce biogas as a renewable gaseous fuel for the hybrid PV/biogas system showed that it
could change the negative value of POME into a positive externality, both for the community and
environmental sustainability. The technical analysis showed that the hybrid system met demand loads
without electricity shortages. However, utilizing biogas for electricity was still expensive due to high capital
and O&M costs. The energy cost was significantly reduced when integrating a biogas system with other
renewable resources, such as solar energy. In the biogas system, the levelized cost of energy was about
$0.2250 and dropped to $0.1479/kWh when hybridized with a PV system. The results have indicated the low
economic profitability of the biogas power plant in comparison to the PV/biogas hybrid system. From an
environmental perspective, the hybrid PV/biogas system using POME could not only produce sustainable
renewable energy but it also minimized methane and CO 2, as well as reduce emissions of other harmful
gases, such as CO, HC, PM, and Sox.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the funding support from Universitas Tanjungpura through DIPA
Fakultas Teknik 2022.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Barcelos, S. Rios, R. N. Cunha, R. Lopes, S. Y. Motoike, E. Babiychuk, A. Skirycz, and S. Kushnir, “Oil palm natural diversity
and the potential for yield improvement,” Frontiers in plant science, vol. 6, p. 190, 2015, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00190.
[2] V. Vijay, S. L. Pimm, C. N. Jenkins, and S. J. Smith, “The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss,”
PLOS ONE, vol. 11, no. 7, p. e0159668, 2016, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159668.
[3] C. Lesage, J. Cifuentes-Espinosa, and L. Feintrenie, “Oil palm cultivation in the Americas: review of the social, economic and
environmental conditions of its expansion,” Cahiers Agricultures, vol. 30 p. 27, 2021, doi: 10.1051/cagri/2021015.
[4] I. Jelsma, M. Slingerland, K. E. Giller, and J. Bijman, “Collective action in a smallholder oil palm production system in
Indonesia: The key to sustainable and inclusive smallholder palm oil?” Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 54, pp. 198-210, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.005.
[5] L. A. J. Letti, et al.,”Chapter 9 - Valorization of solid and liquid wastes from palm oil industry,” Waste Biorefinery, Elsevier, pp.
235-265, 2021, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821879-2.00009-0.
[6] S. Kaniapan, S. Hassan, H. Ya, K. P. Nesan, and M. Azeem, “The utilisation of palm oil and oil palm residues and the related
challenges as a sustainable alternative in biofuel, bioenergy, and transportation sector: a review, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, p.
3110, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13063110.
[7] C. Moliner, E. Arato, and F. Marchelli, “Current status of energy production from solid biomass in Southern Italy,” Energies, vol.
14, no. 9, p. 2576, 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14092576.
[8] S. Mohammad, S. Baidurah, T. Kobayashi, N. Ismail, and C. P. Leh, “Palm oil mill effluent treatment processes-a review,”
Processes, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 739, 2021, doi: 10.3390/pr9050739.
[9] N. Firdaus, B. T. Prasetyo, Y. Sofyan, and F. Siregar, “Part I of II: palm oil mill effluent (POME): biogas power plant,”
Distributed Generation & Alternative Energy Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 73-79, 2017, doi: 10.1080/21563306.2017.11869110.
[10] S. S. Raman, Z. Z. Noor, S. S. Syed Narolhisa, C. S. Chong, and L. C. Stringer, “Energy generation from palm oil mill effluent
(POME): the environmental impact perspective,” Chemical Engineering Transactions, vol. 72, pp. 25-30, 2019, doi:
10.3303/CET1972005.
[11] W. Uddin et al., “Biogas potential for electric power generation in Pakistan: a survey,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 54, pp. 25-33, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.083.
[12] M. Caliskan and N. F. T. Ozdil, “Potential of biogas and electricity production from animal waste in Turkey,” BioEnergy
Research, vol. 14, pp. 860-869, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12155-020-10193-w.
[13] W. S. Ho, H. Hashim, M. H. Hassim, Z. A. Muis, and N. L. M. Shamsuddin, “Design of distributed energy system through
electric system cascade analysis (ESCA),” Applied Energy, vol. 99, pp. 309-315, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.016.
[14] M. R. Mohaghegh, M. Heidari, S. Tasnim, A. Dutta, and S. Mahmud, “Latest advances on hybrid solar–biomass power plants,”
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2021, doi: 10.1080/15567036.2021.1887974.
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)
464 ISSN: 2088-8694
[15] A. M. Pantaleo, S. M. Camporeale, A. Miliozzi, V. Russo, N. Shah, and C. N. Markides, “Novel hybrid CSP-biomass CHP for
flexible generation: thermo-economic analysis and profitability assessment,” Applied Energy, vol. 204, pp. 994-1006, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.019.
[16] J. Soares, A. C. Oliveira, S. Dieckmann, D. Krüger, F. Orioli, “Evaluation of the performance of hybrid CSP/biomass power
plants,” International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 380-387, 2018, doi: 10.1093/ijlct/cty046.
[17] Y. Tanaka, S. Mesfun, K. Umeki, A. Toffolo, Y. Tamaura, and K. Yoshikawa, “Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid power
generation system using biomass gasification and concentrated solar thermal processes,” Applied Energy, vol. 160, pp. 664-672,
2015, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.084.
[18] C. Xu, T. Xin, X. Li, S. Li, Y. Sun, W. Liu, and Y. Yang, “A thermodynamic analysis of a solar hybrid coal-based direct-fired
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 196, pp. 77-91, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.002.
[19] U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, P. C. Pant, and R. Chaudhary, “Resource assessment for hybrid solar-biomass power plant and its
thermodynamic evaluation in India,” Solar Energy, vol. 139, pp. 47-57, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2016.09.025.
[20] R. Soria, J. Portugal-Pereira, A. Szklo, R. Milani, and R. Schaeffer, “Hybrid concentrated solar power (CSP)–biomass plants in a
semiarid region: a strategy for CSP deployment in Brazil,” Energy Policy, vol. 86, pp. 57-72, 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.028.
[21] J. Soares and A. C. Oliveira, “Numerical simulation of a hybrid concentrated solar power/biomass mini power plant,” Applied
Thermal Engineering, vol. 111, pp. 1378-1386, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.06.180.
[22] E. K. Burin, L. Buranello, P. L. Giudice, T. Vogel, K. Görner, and E. Bazzo, “Boosting power output of a sugarcane bagasse
cogeneration plant using parabolic trough collectors in a feedwater heating scheme,” Applied Energy, vol. 154, pp. 232-241, 2015,
doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.100.
[23] C. C. Ebeya et al., “A novel approach for sizing and optimization of hybrid solar-PV, biogas-generator, and batteries system for
rural electrification: case study,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1070-1084,
2023, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v14.i2.pp1070-1084.
[24] S. Othman, M. R. Ab. Ghani, Z. Jano, and T. Sutikno, “Modelling of solar micro gas turbine for parabolic dish based controller
application,” Telkomnika, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 3184-3190, 2020, doi: 10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v18i6.16676.
[25] J. A. Ruiz, M. C. Juárez, M. P. Morales, L. M. López-Ochoa, and J. Doménech, “Biomass gasification or combustion for
generating electricity in Spain: review of its current situation according to the opinion of specialists in the field,” Journal of
Renewable and Sustainable Energy, vol. 5, p. 012801, 2013, doi: 10.1063/1.4792605.
[26] D. Alfonso-Solar, C. Vargas-Salgado, C. Sánchez-Díaz, and E. Hurtado-Pérez, “Small-scale hybrid photovoltaic-biomass systems
feasibility analysis for higher education buildings,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 9300, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12219300.
[27] L. Al-Ghussain, A. D. Ahmad, A. M. Abubaker, and M. A. Mohamed, “An integrated photovoltaic/wind/biomass and hybrid
energy storage systems towards 100% renewable energy microgrids in university campuses,” Sustainable Energy Technologies
and Assessments, vol. 46, p. 101273, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101273.
[28] N. Chowdhury, C. A. Hossain, M. Longo, and W. Yaïci, “Feasibility and cost analysis of photovoltaic-biomass hybrid energy
system in off-grid areas of Bangladesh,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1568, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12041568.
[29] A. Barragán-Escandón, J. M. O. Ruiz, J. D. C. Tigre, and E. F. Zalamea-León, “Assessment of power generation using biogas
from landfills in an equatorial tropical context,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 2669, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12072669.
[30] Y. Rajbhandari, A. Marahatta, A. Shrestha, A. Gachhadar, A. Thapa, F. Gonzalez-Longatt, and J. M. Guerre, “Load prioritization
technique to guarantee the continuous electric supply for essential loads in rural microgrids,” International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 134, p. 107398, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107398.
[31] P. L. Tang, W. L. Hong, C. S. Yue, and S. Harun, “Palm oil mill effluent as the pretreatment solvent of oil palm empty fruit bunch
fiber for fermentable sugars production,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 314, p. 123723, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123723.
[32] O. W. Awe, Y. Zhao, A. Nzihou, D. P. Minh, and N. Lyczko, “A review of biogas utilisation, purification and upgrading
technologies,” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol. 8, pp. 267-283, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12649-016-9826-4.
[33] G. Wang, Z. Zhang, and Z. Hao, “Recent advances in technologies for the removal of volatile methylsiloxanes: a case in biogas
purification process,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2257-2313, 2019, doi:
10.1080/10643389.2019.1607443.
[34] X. Lok, Y. J. Chan, and D. C. Y. Foo, “Simulation and optimisation of full-scale palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment plant
with biogas production,” Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 38, p. 101558, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101558.
[35] S. O. Masebinu, E. T. Akinlabi, E. Muzenda, A. O. Aboyade, and C. Mbohwa, “Experimental and feasibility assessment of biogas
production by anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste from Joburg Market,” Waste Management, vol. 75, pp. 236-250,
2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.011.
[36] A. Hazmi, R. Desmiarti, E. P. Waldi, and P. Emeraldi, “Preliminary study on treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) by sand
filtration-DBD plasma system,” Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 21-30, 2016, doi:
10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2016.48.1.3.
[37] M. Mohammed, I. S. Egyir, A. K. Donkor, P. Amoah, S. Nyarko, K. K. Boateng, and C. Ziwu, “Feasibility study for biogas
integration into waste treatment plants in Ghana,” Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 695-703, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.ejpe.2016.10.004.
[38] C. Ghenai and I. Janajreh, “Design of solar-biomass hybrid microgrid system in Sharjah,” Energy Procedia, vol. 103, pp. 357-
362, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.11.299.
[39] R. Kurnianto, A. Hiendro, and M. I. Yusuf, “Optimum orientation angles for photovoltaic arrays to maximize energy gain at near
equator location in Indonesia,” International Review of Automatic Control, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 86-91, 2017, doi:
10.15866/ireaco.v10i1.11017.
[40] A. Hiendro, R. Kurnianto, M. Rajagukguk, Y. M. Simanjuntak, and Junaidi, “Techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic/wind
hybrid system for onshore/remote area in Indonesia,” Energy, vol. 59, pp. 652-657, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.005.
[41] H. Al-Najjar, H. J. El-Khozondar, C. Pfeifer, and F. Al Afif, “Hybrid grid-tie electrification analysis of bio-shared renewable
energy systems for domestic application,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 77, p. 103538, 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.scs.2021.103538.
[42] I. P. G. I. Dwipayana, I. N. S. Kumara, and I. N. Setiawan, “Status of battery in Indonesia to support application of solar PV with
energy storage,” Journal of Electrical, Electronics and Informatics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 29-40, 2021, doi:
10.24843/JEEI.2021.v05.i01.p06.
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 454-465
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694 465
[43] T. Srinivasa, and B. V. Reddy, “Hybrid solar-biomass power plant without energy storage,” Case Studies in Thermal Engineering,
vol. 2, pp. 75-81, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2013.12.004
[44] S. O. Sanni, M. Ibrahim, I. Mahmud, T. O. Oyewole , and K. O. Olusuyi, “Potential of off-grid solar PV/biogas power generation
system: Case study of Ado Ekiti slaughterhouse,” International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1309-
1318, 2019, doi: 10.20508/ijrer.v9i3.9559.g7711.
[45] N. Lepkova, D. Zubka, and R. L. Jensen, “Chapter 10 - Financial investments for zero energy houses: the case of near-zero energy
buildings,” Global Sustainable Communities Handbook, pp. 217-253, 2014, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-397914-8.00010-2.
[46] O. Jolliet, M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, G. Rebitzer, and R. Rosenbaum, “IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle
impact assessment methodology,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 8, pp. 324-330, 2003, doi:
10.1007/BF02978505.
[47] A. Macor and A. Benato, “Regulated emissions of biogas engines—on site experimental measurements and damage assessment
on human health,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 1044, 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13051044.
[48] S. K. Hotta, N. Sahoo, and K. Mohanty, “Comparative assessment of a spark ignition engine fueled with gasoline and raw
biogas,” Renewable Energy, vol. 134, pp. 1307-1319, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.049.
[49] A. Sakhrieh, J. A. Asfar, and N. A. Shuaib, “An optimized off-grid hybrid system for power generation in rural areas,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 865-872, 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i2.pp865-872.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Fitriah Husin received the B.Eng. and M.Eng. degrees in Electrical Engineering
from Tanjungpura University, Pontianak, Indonesia, in 2009 and 2011, respectively. She is a
lecturer at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tanjungpura University, Indonesia. Her
research interests involve renewable energy, computation, and energy management and
planning. She can be contacted at email: fitriah@ee.untan.ac.id.
Kho Hie Khwee received his B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from
Tanjungpura University, Indonesia, in 1991 and his M.Eng. degree in electric power
engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia, in 1996. He is an associate
professor at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tanjungpura University. His research
interests include renewable energy and applications of electric motors. He can be contacted at
email: andreankhow@yahoo.co.id.
Assessing the utilization of palm oil mill effluent in photovoltaic … (Ayong Hiendro)