NL Agency - Sustainability Assessment Rice Husk gasifier Indonesia

5,692 views

Published on

In June 2013 Emiel Hanekamp assessed the first rice husk gasification plant in South Sulawesi (Indonesia) on behalf of NL Agency.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NL Agency - Sustainability Assessment Rice Husk gasifier Indonesia

  1. 1. Sustainability Assessment rice husk project Indonesia Agentschap NL 19 September 2013 Emiel Hanekamp, senior consultant Partners for Innovation BV © Partners for Innovation
  2. 2. Introduction 1) DBM project: “Applying rice husk as feedstock for power generation“ 2) Introduction of the assignment 3) Approach Sustainability Assessment 4) Results 5) Conclusions and recommendations to consortium 6) Questions and discussion 2
  3. 3. 1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as feedstock for power generation Objective: To establish a successful pilot project in power generation with rice husk gasification and to gain insights into the conditions under which this is beneficial from an economic, environmental and local development perspective. Consortium: - BULOG: government owned company responsible for the national food supply (mainly rice) in Indonesia - PT SyRes Indonesia: privately owned energy company developing projects in the area of hydropower, biomas/rice husk, algae and other forms of renewable energy Results: 2 rice husk gasifiers (Jatisari and Anabanua) 3
  4. 4. 1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as feedstock for power generation Anabanua (South- Sulawesi) Jatisari (Java) 4
  5. 5. 1) Current situation in Anabanua UPGB Anabanua = rice processing unit of BULOG (200 in IND) > installation for drying rice runs on kerosene and for milling on diesel ‘milling’ = removing husks from grain > UPGB buys wet paddy from local farmers (and dry paddy and rice from local rice traders/millers) > rice husks are disposed of behind the drying-milling factory (food for insects and rodents and slowly decaying, releasing methane) > gasifier was technically ready end of May 2013 but not used as no rice was harvested. 5
  6. 6. 1) Gasifier 6
  7. 7. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanuna 7
  8. 8. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 8
  9. 9. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 9
  10. 10. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 10
  11. 11. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 11
  12. 12. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 12
  13. 13. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 13
  14. 14. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 14
  15. 15. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 15
  16. 16. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 16
  17. 17. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua 17
  18. 18. 2) Assignment for Partners for Innovation Harnessing the full learning potential: 1. Carry out a full sustainability assessment of the project based on a robust generic scheme. For this assessment the existing baseline surveys will be used and new data will be collected. In parallel the required data on Direct Effects of the project will be collected. 2. Capacity building of the local consultant from INA, related to sustainability assessments. The local consultant from INA will be working alongside the expert from Partners for Innovation, thereby experiencing and ‘working on the job’ how to perform a sustainability assessment. 3. Provide advice (on request) to BULOG and PT SyRes on issues related to the assessment. 18
  19. 19. 2) The consultants Iskandar and Emiel Emiel Hanekamp Partners for Innovation Iskandar Zulkarnain INA-HCC 19
  20. 20. 3) Approach 1. RSB (Round table for Sustainable Biomaterials) standard > > > Tough, detailed but practical standard PfI experience with RSB in other assignments (e.g. Mozambique) Number of tools available e.g.: • detailed question list (RSB) • Number of guidance documents (RSB) • Screening tool - rapid screening of potential impacts (RSB) • Excel sustainability assessment tool (PfI) with graphical presentation of the results of the assessment De 12 RSB ‘Principles’ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Legality Planning, monitoring and continuous improvement Greenhouse Gases Human and labor rights Rural and Local Development Food security 20 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Conservation Soil Water Air Technology Land (use) rights
  21. 21. 3) Scoring Detailed compliance questions can score: > 100% - Full compliance with the verifier > 75% - Partial compliance with the verifier; a lot has already been done but some further compliance work is needed to reach full compliance > 20% - Non-compliance with the verifier; significant compliance work is needed for this verifier to reach full compliance. We used 20% and not 0% for non-compliance since our assessment experience demonstrates that companies rarely start from zero; most of the time something is already in place > Not Applicable > Similar grading structure for evidence scoring (100%/75%/20%/NA). Scoring is based on the actual evidence (reports, documentation, verbal responses from interviewed people, pictures, etc) that was collected in the course of their assignment. 21
  22. 22. RSB Principles and Criteria (v2.0) Nr 4) Resultaten Verifiers Compliance score Evidence Explanation scoring rice husk old gasifier situation Evidence list >> Explain in a few words the scores for compliance and evidence P3. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Bioenergy shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Criterion 3a. There are no legislative bioenergy policies or regulations in force in Indonesia, in which bioenergy must meet GHG reduction requirements across its lifecycle. Ind. The operator has either calculated the Full com3.a.i.1 GHG emissions of the bio energy plant pliance using the applicable methodology or (100%) provided all necessary input data to the external party. Ind. The operator maintains Non-com3.a.i.2 documentation of and evidence to pliance support the GHG emissions (20%) calculations and the data used in the calculations or provided to external parties. Partial compliance (75%) Partial A GHG calculation has been evidence executed as part of this (75%) assessment. Noncompliance (20%) Ind. The operator provides objective Not 3.a.i.3 evidence demonstrating that lifecycle Applicabl GHG emissions of the biofuels meet e (NA) the minimum required GHG emissions reductions of the legislative biofuels policy or regulation in force. Not Applicable (NA) No A GHG calculation has been evidence executed as part of this (20%) assessment. Some data was provided to the experts but no structural recording of data is done to substantiate the GHG calculation. Not There are no legislative or Appli- regulative minimum cable requirements for GHG (NA) emission reductions for rice husk gasification plants. 22 + Annex A GHG calculation + Rice husk gasification and biochar application + simple GHG calculation
  23. 23. 3) Approach 2. Adjustment of some of the detailed questions > Rice husk is a residue => Principles 6 and 12 are not relevant > Additional questions Agentschap NL: • Competition with other useful rice husk applications? • How do benefit local farmers from the new situation? > Project specific targets for energy use / GHG-emissions: • Minimum 50% GHG emission reduction per kWh produced and 80% overall GHG emission reduction 3. Comparison between ‘old situation’ (no gasifier) and ‘new situation’ (working gasifier) 4. Assessment on content and available evidence > Indication of reliability of the assessment 23
  24. 24. 3) Approach 5. Mission 10 days (16-27 June 2013), to check already provided information and detail the analysis > Number of project documents analysed > Additional documentation during visits requested > Interviews with all stakeholders: 6. Intensive cooperation with Iskandar Zulkarnain necessary due to language problems 24
  25. 25. 3) Activities during 10 day mission 1. Discussions / presentations at BULOG: + Head Office (17th and 27th June) – several people + Regional Office (18th June) – several people + Sub-regional office (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people 2. Discussions with UPGB + UPGB Mangianpajo (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people 3. Discussions with PT SyRes + Hoedani Hadijono (17th, 24th and 25st June) 4. Discussions with third parties + Farmers, traders and millers (20th June) – several people + Regional farmers association Sarudin (19th June) + WWF Indonesia (26th June) 5. Site visits + UPGB Mangianpajo (19th- 21st June) – twice test run of gasifier + Two private millers 6. Request for documentation (evidence) and study of public reports 25
  26. 26. 3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings 26
  27. 27. 3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings 27
  28. 28. 4) Some principles have improved, some deteriorated; overall the same 28
  29. 29. 4) Evidence is overall weak but supports compliance results P1. Legality 100% P11. Technology P2. Planning, Monitoring and Continuous … 80% 60% P3. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) 40% P10. Air 20% 0% P4. Human and Labor Rights P9. Water P5. Rural and Local Development P8. Soil P7. Conservation rice husk gasifier old situation 29 evidence
  30. 30. 4) Some principles have improved, some deteriorated; overall the same Overall weak evidence 30
  31. 31. 5) Main conclusions 1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive sustainability impacts and for widespread replication. 2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability, which is to be confirmed. 3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and to address the risks adequately. 4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season still to come), and the availability of documented evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties. 31
  32. 32. 5) P1. Legality Principle The operation shall follow all applicable laws and regulations The operation complies for 92% with this principle. Conclusions > All permits (trade permit, location permit, Hindering Law and building permit) are in place. > The HO should have been renewed latest 3rd June 2013. Evidence Almost all evidence in place. Absence of valid Hindering Law makes that the score is 92% and not 100%. No copy of the trade permit was transmitted as evidence. 32
  33. 33. 5) P2. Planning, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement The operation shall be planned, implemented, and continuously Principle improved through an open, transparent, and consultative impact assessment and management process and economic viability analysis. Conclusions The operation complies for 63% in the old situation and for 33% in the new situation. In the old situation the RPC is being operated and managed for more than 8 years. In the new situation the following issues and risks have been identified: > No consultation / information sessions with stakeholders > Technical and environmental risks and potential impacts have not been systematically assessed and are managed > Likely positive local social impacts are not being secured > No economic viability analysis has been carried out There is limited evidence (36%) due to the unavailability of Evidence assessments and management plans. This merely supports the results for compliance. 33
  34. 34. 5) P3. GHG Principle The gasifier shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Conclusions The operation complies for 29% with principle 3 in the old situation and for 69% in the new situation. The operation potentially can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Based on calculations using provisional data, a significant (3/4) GHG reduction is possible. There are no legislative or regulative minimum requirements for GHG emission reductions for rice husk gasification plants. Gas leakages and flaring of surplus gas have not been taken into consideration. The evidence is medium (48%) mostly as a result of the uncertainty in Evidence the data on the amounts of paddy processed (drying and milling), and the associated diesel and kerosene used (and saved). 34
  35. 35. 5) P3. GHG 35
  36. 36. 5) P3. GHG 36
  37. 37. 5) P4. Human and Labor Rights Principle The gasifier operations shall not violate human rights or labor rights, and shall promote decent work and the well-being of workers Conclusions The operation complies for 86% with principle 4 in the old situation and for 83% in the new situation. > Wages, working hours, etcetera are in line with the principle. > Responsible personnel recently received a specific training how to operate and maintain the gasification installation. > Operators of the gasifier do not have an official labour contract with UPGB but are hired on a monthly basis. > BULOG-UPGB have not assessed the occupational health&safety risks associated with the gasifier. Literature suggests a number of potential health&safety risks associated with long-term exposure to emissions from the gasifier. The evidence is partially available (66%), mainly based on discussions Evidence with employers, labour unions, local farmers and traders and a representative of the local farmers association. 37
  38. 38. 5) P5. Rural and Local Development Principle Conclusions In regions of poverty, bio-energy operations shall contribute to the social and economic development of local communities. The operation complies for 40% with principle 5 in the old situation and for 58% in the new situation. > Wajo is not a region of poverty. Average rice farmers income is 4,2 USD/day, with national standard poverty line 0,8 USD/day. > No loss of local economic activity for private millers and traders. Gasifier has the potential to improve local rural development : > Enhance position of local farmers by providing them with free drying facilities (or higher prices for wet paddy) > Biochar rice husk (residue from gasifier) is likely to have a positive impact on the soil structure for agriculture. > However, no monitoring in place for the above issues. Some evidence is available (50%) but mainly about Wajo not being a Evidence region of poverty. As gasifier is not yet operational, no hard evidence is available on the expected positive impacts. 38
  39. 39. 5) P7. Conservation Principle Gasifier operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and conservation values. The operation complies for 92% with principle 7 in the old situation and for 94% in the new situation. Based on the RSB Screening tool there are no Conclusions expected negative impacts for biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation values. Evidence Some evidence is available (34%). We used the RSB screening tool to assess compliance. However maps and databases, local stakeholder testimonies or other objective documented evidence was not available. 39
  40. 40. 5) P8. Soil Principle Gasifier operations shall implement practices that seek to reverse soil degradation and/or maintain soil health. The operation complies for 20% with principle 8 in the old situation and for 57% in the new situation. > Agricultural activities are out of scope as a residue is used. Conclusions > Currently rice husk is not being used in other useful applications > Rice husk is being dumped behind the RPC unit > Biochar potentially can improve soil quality > There are pollution and contamination risks from PAHs in the water and sludge of the settling pond Evidence At present some (54%) evidence is available, mostly related to proving a residue is being used. As the gasifier is not operational yet and biochar is not used yet, no evidence is available related to the potential soil contamination risks and potential positive impacts on soil quality. 40
  41. 41. 5) P9. Water Principle Gasifier operations shall maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources, and respect prior formal or customary water rights. The gasifier operation complies for 90% with principle 9 in the old Conclusions situation and for 48% in the new situation. > Operation does not affect the availability of water in any way > Contamination risk of ground water and nearby water ways Evidence The available evidence (23%) origins mainly from discussions with BULOG and UPGB staff. No supportive documented evidence is available. 41
  42. 42. 5) P10. Air Principle Air pollution from bioenergy operations shall be minimized along the supply chain. The gasifier operations is not compliant with this principle as no Air Emission Control Plan is available and/or implemented. Conclusions + potential emissions from gasifier have not been identified + gasifier installation is not checked for being gasproof Evidence No evidence available. 42
  43. 43. 5) P11. Technology Principle The use of gasifier technology shall seek to maximize production efficiency and social and environmental performance, and minimize the risk of damages to the environment and people. The operation complies for 48% with principle 11 in the old situation and for 20% in the new situation. > Gasifier is a much more complex technology > No risk assessment of the installation has been conducted: • Soil and water contamination by black water of settling pond Conclusions • Air pollution from the gasification installation • Contamination caused by waste from filter installation • Explosion risks > No Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) > No analysis has been made how to maximize the production efficiency of the installation Evidence Minor evidence (20%) is available. Detailed technical description of the Ankur gasifier system not available. The low evidence supports the low compliance scores. 43
  44. 44. 5) Main conclusions 1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive sustainability impacts and for widespread replication. 2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability, which is to be confirmed. 3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and to address the risks adequately. 4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season still to come), and the availability of documented evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties. 44
  45. 45. 6) Recommendations Step 1) Execute an economic analysis, based on factual data and identify measures to improve economic viability. Step 2) Execute and draft a Technology Risk Assessment and a simplified Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Step 3) Ensure economic viability and secure positive social and environmental impacts by implementing a management plan. Step 4) Set up the organisational structures required to implement the above. 45
  46. 46. Vragen en discussie! Partners for Innovation BV Emiel Hanekamp +31 20 62 00 511 e.hanekamp@partnersforinnovation.com 46

×