1. 1 Biomass based Energy System for a Rural Area in Japan June 22-24, 2004 Toshihiko Nakata Tohoku University, Japan

2. 2 Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of renewable energy system

3. 3 Figure 2 Location of Kuzumaki village in Japan

4. 4 Table 1 Statistics of Kuzumaki village Population8,808 Area434.99 km 2 Annual mean temperature 7.9  C Annual rainfall1,040 mm Hours of sunlight1,089 hours Daily mean global solar radiation3.32 kWh/m 2 -day Main industriesAgriculture (in particular, Husbandry) Annual electricity demand29,310 MWh (with a peak demand of 5.12 MWh)

5. 5 Modeling of Electric supply system Short-term modelPeriod of analyze :a single year Inputs to the model :the hourly renewable energy resources and demand for energy. Outputs :the least cost design and operation of the system over a single year on an hour-by-hour basis. Long-term modelPeriod of analyze :30 years (2000-2030) Inputs to the model :the demand projection, the cost cutting of construction and maintenance costs. Outputs :the change of the optimal system configuration in long-term. Input the above result as a default value Figure 3 Flow of the analysis

6. 6 Figure 4 META-Net solution algorithm

7. 7 Figure 5 Convergence process of META-Net

8. 8 Figure 6 Network of renewable energy system

9. 9 ComponentLife (yr) Specific capital cost ($/kW) Fixed operating cost ($/kW/yr) Variable. operating cost (¢/kWh) Efficiency (%) Woody biomass Direct fired20 4,008297.50 0.9727.7 Gasification20 5,833152.07 0.9836.0 Livestock manures Anaerobic digestion (biogas) 2039,773589.4312.2025.0 PV20 7,277 18.71 0.00100.0 Wind20 2,000 52.02 0.00100.0 Table 2 Costs and performances of generation technologies

10. 10 ResourcePrice (¢/kWh) Thinned wood (inside Kuzumaki)2.44 Thinned wood (outside Kuzumaki)3.59 Livestock manures0.00 Grid electricity18.0 Table 3 Resource prices

11. 11 Yr2000Yr2005Yr2010Yr2020 SCC ($/kW)4,0083,4693,0922,561 Fixed O&M cost ($/kW/yr)298.50 242.96 Variable O&M cost (¢/kWh)0.97 0.79 I/O coefficient3.61 2.95 Table 4 Changes in parameters (woody biomass, direct-fired)

12. 12 Cost for waste treatment (A)3.67 (million $) Livestock industry production (B)30.58 (million $) A/B12.0% Cost per dairy farmer0.013 (million $) Table 5 Cost of waste treatment for dairy farmers

13. 13 (peak demand : 1) Figure 7 Electricity load pattern in spring and autumn seasons

14. 14 Figure 8 Annual output generated by PV

15. 15 Figure 9 Annual output generated by wind energy

16. 16 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 196019701980199020002010202020302040 Year projection actual demand Annual elect demand, MWh Figure 10 Projection of electricity demand

17. 17 Results

18. 18 Figure11 Annual electricity generation under the optimal renewable system configuration Grid Wind PV Gasification Direct Fired Anaerobic Digestion

19. 19 Table 6 Optimal configuration of system capacity and annual electricity generation Capacity (MW)Annual production (MWh) Wood biomass-Direct fired0.045337 Wood biomass-Gasification0.7626,231 Livestock manure-Anaerobic digestion 0.01177 PV0.07189 Wind8.6712,594 Grid3.999 (Peak)10,013

20. 20 Generation output, MWh Grid Wind Gasification Direct fired Elect. demand Figure 12 Electricity generation in early April

21. 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 024487296120144168 Hour Electric price, ¢/MWh Anaerobic digestion Direct fired Gasification PV Wind Grid Market price April 3-9, 2000 Figure 13 Electricity marginal cost in early April

22. 22 Generation output, MWh Grid Wind Gasification Direct fired Elect. demand Figure 14 Electricity generation in the middle of April

23. 23 Electric price, ¢/MWh Figure 15 Electricity marginal cost in middle April

24. 24 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Non-RenewableIntegrated-Renewable Carbon emission, TC Figure 16 Annual CO 2 emissions from the non-renewable and renewable systems Grid Woody biomass

25. 25 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Non-RenewableIntegrated-Renewable Annual cost, 10 6 $ Grid WB Fuel Wind Opr PV Opr AD Opr Gs Opr DF Opr Wind Cap PV Cap AD Cap Gs Cap DF Cap Figure 17 Comparison of annual system costs

26. 26 Capital cost reduction

27. 27 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,000 Inverse onerous contract price, JPY/ton Generation output, MWh Figure 20 Anaerobic digestion generation as a function of inverse onerous contract price

28. 28 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Grant rate Inverse onerous contract price, JPY/ton Figure 21 Inverse onerous contract price as a function of subsidy for capital cost

29. 29 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0510152025 the amount of subsidy, $ million reduction of dairy farmer's cost, $ million Figure 22 Reduction of dairy farmer’s cost as a function of the amount of subsidy

30. 30 Grant rate10%30%50%75% Amount of subsidy ($ million)2.788.3513.9220.88 Amount of reduced cost ($ million)3.9411.8720.8626.94 Rate of reduction (%)141.5142.1149.08129.0 Table 7 Subsidy and cost reduction

31. 31 Inverse onerous contract price, JPY/ton Figure 23 Inverse onerous contract price as a function of the reduction rate of chemicals cost for liquid waste treatment 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Reduction rate of chemicals cost

32. 32 0.00E+0 5.00E+3 1.00E+4 1.50E+4 2.00E+4 2.50E+4 3.00E+4 3.50E+4 4.00E+4 4.50E+4 20002003200620092012201520182021202420272030 Year Grid Wind PV Gasification Anaerobic Digestion Direct Fired Generation output, MWh Figure 24 Generation output from 2000 to 2030

33. 33 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20002030 Shares of electricity production Grid Wind PV Anaerobic Digestion Gasification Direct Fired Figure 25 Comparison of annual system configuration Year