Date post: | 01-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | adrian-woods |
View: | 19 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Feasibility StudyFuel Cane Power Generation ProjectforBarbados Agricultural Management Company, Ltd.
Prepared by:Schaffer and Associates International, LLC1020 Florida BoulevardBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 USA
Introduction and Background
Barbados Agricultural Management Company, Ltd. (BAMC) developed a model to provide sustainable energy from cane residue (bagasse). This plan: Provides vision Diversifies energy sources Substitutes green fuels for fossil fuels Supports environmental stewardship Creates added value for cane farmers Promotes economic development
Introduction and Background
Summarization of Project Objectives: Investigate the viability of the fuel cane model Evaluate the current sugar estates/cane fields, sugar
factories and sugar production Assess the potential for power production Provide economic and financial assessment for BAMC
in the energy sector Determine the best way forward for BAMC in
developing its energy program Provide options and alternatives to the existing model
that will make it economically feasible
Introduction and Background
Summarization of Project Benefits: Fuel security
Ethanol fuel blends Green fuel for electricity product
Food security Tourism
Sustainable/renewable supply of electricity Minimal impact on tourist areas and green spaces
Economic Growth Driver Creates employment Creates economic stability for cane farmers and
investment confidence Provides renewable source of power (ethanol &
electricity)
Agricultural Operations
Cane Production– Commercial Cane– Fuel Cane
Harvest and Transport Company Agricultural Input Suppliers Farmers and Outgrowers
Industrial Operations
Sugar Production– Syrup– Molasses– Sugar– Refined & Specialty Sugars
Ethanol Production Power Production
– Bagasse– Natural Gas– Waste (Wood and Paper)
Options: Summaries
SAIL initially developed seven potential cogeneration models and ultimately nine that were taken into consideration:
Grinding Rates Acres of Cane in Production Total Tons of Cane Analysis (% Brix, % Pol, % Fiber, Mixed Juice Purity) Products (Specialty Sugar, Molasses, Refined Sugar,
Ethanol, Electricity) Power Generation
Note: The final two models using combinations of options were developed subsequent to the last site visit in September 2005.
Option #9. Case 2A + 1B with Combined Cycle Power
Assumed Gas Turbine Combined Cycle, Sugar Cane & HFC, Refined Sugar, Specialty Sugar & Fuel Ethanol (Case 2A + 1B with Combined Cycle Power)
Sugar cane: Fiber: 15.85%, Pol: 12.65% High fiber fuel cane: Fiber: 28%, Pol: 8% Production
– Cane 593,388 metric tons– Refined Sugar (local) 12,000 metric tons– Specialty Sugar (local) 5,000 metric tons– Specialty Sugar (export) 10,000 metric tons– Molasses 9,215 metric tons– Ethanol 14,000,000 liters/year– Electricity (bagasse) 102,751 MWh– Electricity (natural gas) 157,680 MW/year
Option #9. Case 2A + 1B with Combined Cycle Power
Benefits– High sugar production during part of the year and
high fiber for electrical generation and ethanol production during the remainder of the year
– Combined cycle makes up to 30 MW of firm power possible
Constraints– Need to find a suitable variety of high fiber cane– Requires larger initial investment
Acceptable:– Yes
Preliminary Indicative Capital Costs: $156.0 million
Project Economics (Option 9)
Major Foreign Exchange Earnings/Import Substitution Major Foreign Exchange Earnings/Import Substitution SavingsSavings
Product QuantityAnnual FOREX
Savings (U.S. $)
Fuel EthanolFuel Ethanol 14.4m liters/year14.4m liters/year 8.425 million8.425 million
SugarSugar 27,000 MT per year 27,000 MT per year (local/export)(local/export)
15.200 million15.200 million
MolassesMolasses 9,215 MT9,215 MT 0.844 million0.844 million
Power (from fiber)Power (from fiber) 102,800 MwH102,800 MwH 11.308 million11.308 million
Power (from natural Power (from natural gas)gas)
Balance up to 30 MwBalance up to 30 Mw
(158,000 MwH)(158,000 MwH)2.897 million*2.897 million*
Power (from waste)Power (from waste) 8,200 MwH8,200 MwH 0.902 million0.902 million
TotalTotal US $39.576 millionUS $39.576 million
* Difference between using Natural Gas versus Fuel Oil/Diesel
Project Economics
Historic FOREX Earnings under E.U. Preferential Historic FOREX Earnings under E.U. Preferential QuotasQuotas
Annual Quota Tonnes
EuroGross
Euro/Year
5031250312 725725 36.5 million36.5 million
5031250312 625625 31.5 million31.5 million
4930049300 525525 25.9 million25.9 million
4930049300 425 (US $25.1 million)425 (US $25.1 million) 20.9 million20.9 million
3209732097 425 (US $16.4 million)425 (US $16.4 million) 13.6 million13.6 million
Hence, the new Project’s FOREX benefits compare favorably with historical economics.
Project Economics
Any future additional land will be dedicated Any future additional land will be dedicated to Fuel Ethanol, Power and Molassesto Fuel Ethanol, Power and Molasses
Assures continuance of farming in the Assures continuance of farming in the traditional farming areatraditional farming area
Provides fuel securityProvides fuel security Project complies with E.U. Settlement Project complies with E.U. Settlement
RequirementsRequirements
Human ResourcesHuman Resources
New positions created by:New positions created by:– New product lines (ethanol, power, New product lines (ethanol, power,
specialty and refined sugar)specialty and refined sugar)– Extended crushing seasonExtended crushing season
Extensive re-training, where necessary, to re-Extensive re-training, where necessary, to re-locate existing technical stafflocate existing technical staff
Senior management to take on more Senior management to take on more responsibilitiesresponsibilities
Streamline overhead and administrative Streamline overhead and administrative functionsfunctions
Centralize all functions to new industrial siteCentralize all functions to new industrial site