4.7 Article

A barrier and techno-economic analysis of small-scale bCHP (biomass combined heat and power) schemes in the UK

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 71, Issue -, Pages 332-345

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.079

Keywords

Biomass CHP case study; Project barriers; Project development; Techno-economic analysis; LEC (levelised energy cost)

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/H035818/1]
  2. EREBUS (Engaging Research for Business Transformation) Cluster in the West Midlands region of the UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

bCHP (Biomass combined heat and power) systems are highly efficient at smaller-scales when a significant proportion of the heat produced can be effectively utilised for hot water, space heating or industrial heating purposes. However, there are many barriers to project development and this has greatly inhibited deployment in the UK Project viability is highly subjective to changes in policy, regulation, the finance market and the low cost fossil fuel incumbent. The paper reviews the barriers to small-scale bCHP project development in the UK along with a case study of a failed 1.5 MWel bCHP scheme. The paper offers possible explanations for the project's failure and suggests adaptations to improve the project resilience. Analysis of the project's: capital structuring; contract length and bankability; feedstock type and price uncertainty, and; plant oversizing highlight the negative impact of the existing project barriers on project development. The research paper concludes with a discussion on the effects of these barriers on the case study project and this industry more generally. A greater understanding of the techno-economic effects of some barriers for small-scale bCHP schemes is demonstrated within this paper, along with some methods for improving the attractiveness and resilience of projects of this kind. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available