4.7 Article

Contribution of the wood-processing industry for sustainable power generation: Viability of biomass-fuelled cogeneration in Sub-Saharan Africa

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 324-331

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.015

关键词

Cogeneration; Sub-saharan africa; Woody biomass; Renewable energy; Wood industry; Feasibility study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy access in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains a challenging issue at the midway point to the United Nations' development goals. From the perspective of energy efficiency and diversification of power-generation sources, this paper investigates the capacity of the wood-processing industry to contribute to the decentralised power generation by performing a techno-economic analysis of the use of wood residues for cogeneration. Using a survey performed in Cameroon as a case study, a biomass-fuelled cogeneration scheme and a model analysing its viability are proposed for the specific context of SSA. A sensitivity analysis indicates for a given process efficiency of the industry, the attractiveness of cogeneration as the processing capacity and feed-in tariffs of electricity increase. More specifically, the threshold of feed-in tariffs ensuring the economic viability of CHP in the sub-region is estimated at $0.15 per kWh for mills where the output capacities of sawn timber products are of 5000 cubic metre per annum and more. The power-generation potential from the primary processing of timbers in the sub-region is about 388 kWh per cubic metre of sawn wood, while the energy intensity of the sawing process is estimated at 132 kWh per cubic metre. Therefore, the industry can generate up to 2472 GWh of electricity in the three sub-regions of East, West and Central Africa if a total of US$ 2.5 billion is invested, allowing a substantial increase of 1% of the current electricity-generation capacity for the geographic location which has the most important forestry resources on the continent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据