Report on - United Nations India

i

Waste Agricultural bio-mass for Energy:

Resource Conservation and GHG

Emission Reduction

Report on

ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONVERTING

WASTE AGRICULTURAL BIOMASS INTO ENERGY

2

CONTENTS

Chapter

No.

Sub Chap-

ter No.

Title Page

1 Implementation of SAT Methodology 4

1.1 Tier 1: Screening Criteria 6

1.2 Tier 2: Scoping Analysis: 8

1.3 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment Criteria 8

1.3.1 The decision making about the final choice 9

1.4 Listing the evaluation criteria appropriate to the situation. 10

1.5 Application of sat 10

1.5.1 Conducting the situation analysis 10

1.5.2 Defining Problems / Issues 11

1.5.3 Baseline Data Collection 11

1.5.4 Stakeholder Consultation 11

1.5.5 Steps for the stake holders workshop 13

1.6 Issues of concern of the stakeholders: 13

1.7 Solution for scoping analysis (tier 2 assessment) 15

1.8 Strategic level assessment 15

1.9 Operational level assessment 15

1.10 Solution for screening of technologies (tier 1) 16

1.11 Setting criteria for scoping analysis 18

1.12 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment: 20

2 Selection of top ranked options 22

3 Graphical Representation of Scoring Results 23

3.1 Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment of Criteria 23

3.2 The Environmental Aspects 24

3.3 Star Diagram for Technical Aspects 25

3.4 Star Diagram for Social Aspects 27

3.5 Star Diagram for Financial Aspects 28

3.6 Composite Star Diagram for All Aspects 29

3.7 Star Diagram for Comparison of Two Distinct Technolo-

gies viz: Briquetting and Gasification:

30

Section 2: Selection of most promising technologies. 31

4 The technology choice: 31

4.1 Introduction 31

3

List of Tables

Table 1 Generic criteria for screening technologies 6

Table 1.2 Screening of Technologies* 9

Table 1.10 Screening of Technologies: 17

Table 1.11 Criteria Selected for Scoping Analysis 18

Table 1.12 Ranks of Technology Options Based on Total Scores of All Crite-

ria

21

Table 2 Scores of different technologies 22

List of Figures

Figure

1.5.5

Activities for Participants (Developing the Worksheets) 13

Figure 1.9 Screening Criteria (Tier 1) 15

Figure 3.2 Star diagram of selected technologies for environmental aspects. 25

Figure 3.3 Star Diagram for Technical Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Tech-

nologies

26

Figure 3.4 Star Diagram for Social Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Technol-

ogies

27

Figure 3.5 Star Diagram for Financial Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Tech-

nologies

28

Figure 3.6 Star Diagram of All Criteria for the Top Four Ranked Technologies 29

Figure 3.7 Star Diagram for Comparison of Two Technologies for Paddy Husk

Management

30

List of Annexures

Annexure-1 List of manufacturers of biomass conversion systems in India 32

Annexure-2 A typical example of a quotation offered by a supplier 42

1 Implementation of SAT Methodology

As stated above, the SAT methodology incorporates assessments at both strategic level and

operational level, and thereby allowing its usage by different stakeholders at different decision

making levels. For example, at the policy / government level, SAT can be applied for strategic

decision-making. Once decisions at the strategic level are taken, SAT could be applied at the

operational level, primarily by the technical staff, designers, and consultants, to assess alternate

technology systems. Although the objective of this report is to apply SAT methodology pri-

marily at operational level of a project on conversion of WAB to energy, a brief analysis on

the technology assessment in strategic decision making level is included to illustrate the appli-

cation for the completion of the analysis.

Another important element of SAT methodology is the tiered process of screening, scoping and

detail assessments, which reflects progressiveness and optimized information requirement. In

other words, the tiered process makes comprehensive information collection requirement only

for short-listed resource-technology-application options. Through this process, the obviously

non-feasible options are eliminated at the screening stage, followed by further elimination

through scoping process. Scoping uses selected criteria that use more of qualitative or readily

available quantitative information for the evaluation. The options that pass through scoping

stage are subjected to a more rigorous evaluation at the detailed assessment tier, using addi-

tional criteria. Once the decision is made on the best resource-technology-application option,

it would then form the basis for further steps such as detailed engineering design, tendering,

actual construction and commissioning. It is also important to continuously monitor and eval-

uate the technology system during its operational phase to ensure that it is meeting the desired

objectives.

Another important aspect is the scenario analysis. Although some technology system may score

the best in the current context, while simulating different scenarios, the same option may not

qualify as the best. Conversely, an option that does not qualify due to lower scores in the current

situation may probably top the list, with appropriate technology transfer/adaptation or capacity

building efforts or change in policies/ regulations. This is an important aspect to be considered

before discarding the low-scoring options. Hence a careful scrutiny of the options, going be-

yond the mere numbers, is required. The SAT methodology also makes provision to use the

experience gained through the implementation of the present project for either duplication of

the project into other locations or for carrying out situational analysis of similar projects in

future, and hence can help in making better informed decisions.

The most important element in the assessment process is the identification of appropriate cri-

teria and indicators. In the framework of sustainability, a set of generic criteria and indicators

are developed under the broad categories of technological, environmental, financial and socio-

cultural, giving due consideration to the risks and restrictions associated with the resource-

technology-application options. Further, development of customized criteria and indicators ap-

plicable to specific situations is required to ensure the rationality. In order to facilitate decision

making, the qualitative assessments based on selected criteria and indicators are converted into

quantitative figures through a quantification and aggregation framework in the SAT method-

ology. The key elements in this approach are the weights to be assigned to criteria and scores

to be assigned to indicators. This process also facilitates sensitivity studies and scenario build-

ing so that more flexible and dynamic results could be obtained.

The SAT methodology employs a number of tools and techniques, such as information driven

benchmarking, expert opinions and participatory assessment by stakeholders, to facilitate the

assessment process. These tools are used in a mix and at different degrees depending on the

level of assessment – strategic or operational. In this study, Analytical Hierarchy Process

(AHP) methodology was employed for the quantification of the weights to be assigned to the

four groups of evaluation criteria, namely technical, financial, environmental and socio-cul-

tural.

Based on the above depiction, following basic steps in implementation of SAT methodology

could be recognized:

- Situational analysis

- Strategic level assessment

- Operational level assessment

Screening

Scoping

Detailed assessment

- Anticipating future scenarios

- Decision-making on preferred technology options

- Feedback loop

.

The present project on converting WAB to energy in Cambodia incorporates an integrated and

systematic approach in technology selection based on the SAT methodology described above,

results of which are presented in the subsequent sections in this report.

A list of generic criteria and indicators considered for the evaluation are presented here below

in Table 1

1.1 Tier 1: Screening Criteria

For the Tier 1 screening, the team identified the five main criteria as below.

Simplicity of technology and ease of operation

Multiple WAB usage

Space requirement for the plant and equipment

Economics of operation

Environmentally friendly

Table 1: Generic criteria for screening technologies

Technology Criteria for Screening

(Sel

ecte

d /

Not

sele

cte

d)

Sim

pli

city

of

tech

nolo

gy

an

d e

ase

of

op

erati

on

Mu

ltip

le W

AB

usa

ge

Sp

ace

req

uir

emen

t fo

r

the

pla

nt

an

d e

qu

ipm

ent

Eco

nom

ics

of

op

erati

on

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

frie

nd

ly

Screw type briquetting machine Selected

Small scale charcoal kiln Selected

Paddy husk cook stove Selected

Paddy husk gas stove Not se-

lected

Charcoal making cook stove Selected

Paddy husk stove cum cabinet

dryer

Not se-

lected

Paddy husk stove cum tray dryer Not se-

lected


(Sel

ecte

d /

Not

sele

cte

d)

Sim

pli

city

of

tech

nolo

gy

an

d e

ase

of

op

erati

on

Mu

ltip

le W

AB

usa

ge

Sp

ace

req

uir

emen

t fo

r

the

pla

nt

an

d e

qu

ipm

ent

Eco

nom

ics

of

op

erati

on

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

frie

nd

ly

Direct combustion / direct heat-

ing

Not se-

lected

Boiler steam turbine Not se-

lected

Gasifier cum internal combus-

tion engine Selected

Gasifier in thermal mode Selected

Straw baler Selected

Press or extruder Not se-

lected

Paper pulping Not se-

lected

Biogas digester– continuous

type

Not se-

lected

Biogas digester with internal

combustion engine

Not se-

lected

Composting Not se-

lected

Densified TMR block making

plant with TMR mixer

Not se-

lected

No technology can be implemented without the condition that it matches with the local envi-

ronmental laws. Hence, this is a very basic requirement and is very simple to check or verify.

The details of the proposed technology systems were verified for, through their technology

fact sheets, ensuring compliance with local as well as national legislation. In addition, expert

opinions and information from vendors and technology experts also were sought.

It was also checked and verified that none of the proposed technology systesm violate any of

the legislations or standards as applicable to the local area. This was carefully scrutinized and

expert opinions were also sought.

It was also ensured that the objective of the technological intervention should not be limited

only tolegal compliance, but the options of recycling and/or remediation also were consid-

ered. Decision on this criterion was made on the basis of information on technology fact

sheets, expert opinions and information from vendors.

1.2 Tier 2: Scoping Analysis:

The assessment was completed by the stakeholder under the guidance and expert opinion pro-

vided by an experienced professional.

During this stage of SAT, the stakeholders were asked to assess the various technology system

options vis-à-vis the generic and customized criteria and indicators by using an appropriate

assessment methods. The group preferred to use the Simple Weighted Sum Method.

The team identified and developed appropriate criteria under the four categories viz: (i) Tech-

nical, (ii) Financial, (iii) Environmental and (iv) Social categories

The group established a mutually agreed upon scale and assigned the scores on the basis of.

Each member made efforts to base the actual information on a particular criterion to be quan-

titative. However, in some cases where it was felt not possible to assign a justifiable quantifi-

cation, the members used appropriate qualitative criteria and considerations.

Participants were instructed to attach additional sheets if required, and also show a preliminary

ranking of suitable ESTs based on the scoping analysis.

The following technologies have been short-listed for Tier 2 assessment:

Briquetting

Gasification to produce syngas

Biogas-cum-fertilizer generation (biomethanation)

Table 1.2 shows the shortlisted technologies for further analysis. The favourable outcome for

a particular criterion has been listed in the second row of the table. In this case, a particular

technology is said to pass the screening provided it scores a favourable outcome for at least 7

of the listed screening criteria.

1.3 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment Criteria

In this tier of assessment, detailed information was collected for the listed criteria for this level

of assessment using information collected from vendors and technology fact sheets. At appro-

priate stages, the team also sought opinion and advise of expert to study and analyze the col-

lected information and accordingly assigned the ratings for each criterion. Field visits to the

technology suppliers were undertaken to see the situation in perspective.

1.3.1 The decision making about the final choice

Techniques for assessing alternatives and selecting appropriate technology. The three steps of

decision making were used for making the final choice.

Step-1: Problem Identification

Identifying the problem, determining which decisions have to be made, collecting all available

information.

Step-2: Design

Creating a list of possible alternatives. Assign risk/advantage values to each alternatives/ deci-

sion. Determining success criteria.

Step-3: Choice

Processing the alternatives and ranking them.

Table 1.2: Screening of Technologies*

Technology Criteria for Screening (S

elec

ted /

Not

sele

cted

)

Sim

pli

city

of

tech

nolo

gy

and e

ase

of

oper

atio

n

Mult

iple

WA

B u

sage

Spac

e re

quir

emen

t fo

r th

e

pla

nt

and e

quip

men

t

Eco

nom

ics

of

oper

atio

n

Envir

onm

enta

lly f

rien

dly






(Sel

ecte

d /

Not

sele

cted

)

Sim

pli

city

of

tech

nolo

gy

and e

ase

of

oper

atio

n

Mult

iple

WA

B u

sage

Spac

e re

quir

emen

t fo

r th

e

pla

nt

and e

quip

men

t

Eco

nom

ics

of

oper

atio

n

Envir

onm

enta

lly f

rien

dly

Gasifier cum internal combus-

tion engine

Selected


Gasifier in thermal mode Selected

1.4 Listing the evaluation criteria appropriate to the situation.

Through extensive discussions amongst the team members, and through refining the list of

criteria from stage to stage, the final set of criteria were set.

Assign a relative weight to each criterion; based on how important that criterion is to the situ-

ation. This was done through distributing 100 points amongst the criteria. The assignment of

weightages was done by mutual discussions and consensus amongst the members. The process

adopted for this was that initially each member was asked to assign weightage to the criteria,

then the numbers for each criterion were added for a composite average team weighting. In

some cases the members found some differences of opinions and the same were sorted out by

consensus.

The commonly applied methods for resolving the multiple criteria (advantages/ disadvantages)

of different options, as mentioned below, were considered by the team. Although the team

heavily banked upon the Weighted sum matrix, but some of the others also were discussed and

used in some or the other form.

Weighting method or Weighted Sum Matrix or Decision Matrix;

Sequential Elimination by Lexicography;

Sequential Elimination by Conjunctive Constraints;

Goal Programming;

Delphi Method for Consensus Building; and

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

Although advanced methods like Expert Systems and Neural Networks are applied for decision

making and evaluation, the team has not considered them for want of availability of the appro-

priate skill and expertise needed for using the same.

1.5 Application of sat

The merrut and Bulandshahar region has been selected for the demonstration project. The jus-

tification for selection of this region has been provided in the earlier parts of the report.

1.5.1 Conducting the situation analysis

The purpose of technological intervention is to address a defined problem or set of related

problems. Once the problem is defined, it is essential to undertake a situation analysis. In case

of the project at hand, the situation was analysed through the following activities;

Baseline data collection;

Stakeholder consultation; and

Mapping, analysis and setting targets.

1.5.2 Defining Problems / Issues

The project “Converting Waste Agricultural Biomass to Fuel / Resources” planned to be im-

plemented in the said district of Uttar Pradesh was initiated with the final objective of devel-

oping a pilot project based on a selected resource-technology combination as a mean of man-

aging waste. Given its inherent properties, it is prudent to consider the WAB as a resource

rather than dispose it off in an unsustainable manner. The project was therefore intended to

explore the most appropriate ways of converting these resources into value added products or

materials, thereby minimizing the environmental and social issues which have traditionally

arisen due to improper management practices. In doing so, every effort has been made to ex-

plore and enable the generation of additional income to the local community.

1.5.3 Baseline Data Collection

Baseline data on types, generation and availability of various WABs was collected. The anal-

ysis was restricted to the two divisions of Buland shahar and Merrut, since reliable and close

to accurate numbers were available for these divisions alone.

The waste materials considered include agricultural residues

as well as other waste types within the area, which have sig-

nificant generation potentials. Pl. ref. Box 1.5.3

1.5.4 Stakeholder Consultation

A stake holders consultation workshop was organized. The

various stakeholders as identified were:

Promoters of the company

Municipality Office;

Representatives of Political Parties in the All Party Com-

mittee (7 nos.);

Representatives of 3 Women Groups;

Community Development Group;

Representative of the Youth Farmer Group;

District Development Committee, Merrut

District Agriculture Office, Merrut

Office of Cottage and Small Industry, Merrut

Organic Farmer Group;

Past Mayor; and

Social Workers (5 nos.).

Box 1.5.3

Baseline data is defined as the initial

collection of data which serves as a

starting point for project analysis as

well as a basis of comparison with sub-

sequently acquired data. Baseline data

therefore helps assess the impact of

any actions taken for a project (in this

case, the implementation of a technol-

ogy).

At this stage of the process, the stake-

holder team must concentrate on col-

lecting baseline data relevant to the de-

fined problem. Baseline data should be

robust enough to assist analysis and in-

terpretation of data in the context of the

problem. The brief of the baseline data

collected by the stakeholders and its

analysis for the said case is given be-

low.

1.5.5 Steps for the stake holders workshop

The following standard steps, as in Figure 1.5.5, recommended in the SAT methodology were

adopted for the stakeholders’ workshop. The participants were guided to complete the total

assessment in these steps.

Figure 1.5.5: Activities for Participants (Developing the Worksheets)

1.6 Issues of concern of the stakeholders:

The issues concerning waste agricultural residues in Uttar Pradesh were defined as follows.

Surplus WAB leads to health, environmental and social problems

The local population waas not aware that the present practices of disposing such surplus

WAB was in fact a loss of useful resource, and have been treating such practices as natural

practices without thinking about any possible and value added alternative use.

A

• Literature review of technology options

B

• Screening of technologies (Tier 1)

C

• Scoping analysis (Tier 2)

D

• Understand more details of technologies

E

• Detailed assessment (Tier 3)

F

• Justify choice of chosen technology option

The inability to utilize generated waste agricultural residues for useful applications (energy

source / materials recycling or reuse) puts a strain on the already overburdened solid waste

management system

During the workshop, the stakeholders expressed their concern regarding the following if the

technologies were to be installed for conversion of the WAB into a energy:

Should have established and proven financial viability

It should be so designed as to be able to utilize the surplus WAB available in the region

and should not demand any special type of WAB.

Should have flexibility in use of various WABs even from nearby regions, in case local

resources are not sufficient.

Technology should not be polluting.

It should be environmentally friendly;

Should not occupy more than one acres of space including the space required for storage

of the raw WAB and the finished products.

The required skills of the personnel to run the plant should be able to be developed from

the local youth and should not demand bringing any high skilled operators or personnel.

If any special skills are required, the supplier of the technology should be able to train the

local youth.

There were concerns about the year-round sustainable supply and availability of paddy

husk;

Paddy straw was noted as being the most abundantly available waste in both DS divisions

and therefore was thought to hold good potential for the project;

A number of technology options at the commercial level were available for processing

sawdust and market waste;

Improved technology options were available for currently used applications for paddy husk,

particularly brick making and tobacco processing;

There was a need to analyze the availability, enforcement and impact of regulations and

economic tools for various technology applications;

Analyzing the efficiency and effectiveness of collection, treatment, usage and disposal

technologies and associated infrastructure was important; and

1.7 Solution for scoping analysis (tier 2 assessment)

In order to illustrate the solution, the following criteria have been applied for scoping analysis

of the three screened technologies. The weighted score method has been used for the ranking

of these technologies.

1.8 Strategic level assessment

As the next step, planners, decision-makers, mayors / elected representatives should brainstorm

and study various options at the policy and planning levels. Considering the local context one

must choose an appropriate methodology for carrying out a strategic assessment.

1.9 Operational level assessment

Once the macro-level or strategic level options were finalized, operational level assessment

involving engineers and technical staff were involved to assess available technology systems.

The levels of expert opinion and technology information are the highest for this step.

The criteria for Tier 1 applied to these technology systems in the said case are shown in Fig

ure 1.9

.

Screening criteria #1





There should be no policy restriction

Wherever relevant, there should be alignment with Multilateral environmental agreements

There should be a positive / no impact on exist-ing user of WAB

Project objectives must be achieved

Technology should have a positive social impact / generate employment




Technology should be economically viable / af-fordable

Technology should demonstrate good environ-mental performance

Technology should be mature

Figure 1.9: Screening Criteria (Tier 1)

1.10 Solution for screening of technologies (tier 1)

The outcomes of the Stakeholder Consultation Workshop identified certain issues of concern

regarding the technology to be installed for converting the WAB into resource. Accordingly,

these issues have been converted into screening criteria for the given location and situation.

Table 1.10 provides the details of technologies screened during Tier 1 assessment.

Table 1.10: Screening of Technologies:

Tec

hnolo

gy

Are

ther

e P

oli

cy R

e-

stri

ctio

ns

Is T

her

e A

lignm

ent

wit

h

ME

As

and N

atio

nal

Pla

ns

Are

ther

e posi

tive

/ ze

ro

impac

ts o

n e

xis

ting u

sers

of

WA

B

Are

P

roje

ct O

bje

ctiv

es

Ach

ieved

Is t

he

Tec

hnolo

gy E

co-

nom

ic V

iable

Does

Tec

hnolo

gy E

xhib

it

Good E

nvir

onm

enta

l P

er-

form

ance

Is T

her

e a

Posi

tive

Soci

al

Impac

t (E

mplo

ym

ent/

In-

com

e gen

erat

ion)

Is t

he

Tec

hnolo

gy P

roven

Outc

om

e

Favourable outcome for the crite-

rion No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --





Gasifier cum internal combustion

engine Not Se-

lected

Gasifier (Thermal mode) Selected


1.11 Setting criteria for scoping analysis

For the given case study, as per stakeholder consultations, a total of 30 criteria under four broad

categories, viz: 11 Technical, 8 Financial, 5 Social and 6 Environmental criteria were identified

as shown in Table 1.11.

Table 1.11: Criteria Selected for Scoping Analysis

Category Criterion Notation

Technical

Suitability to characteristics of available WAB TC1

Adequate Availability of applicable WAB TC2

Compliance with prevailing local environmental laws, regula-

tions and standards

TC3

Adaptability of technologies TC4

Use of local skills and scope for local capacity building for op-

eration and maintenance

TC5

Use of local material and skills for fabrication and operation TC6

Ease in availability of technical assistance during commission-

ing and operation

TC7

Proven technology, existing working units TC8

Adaptability - Ability to fit into local conditions TC9

Adaptability to future scaling up or expansion options TC10

Ease of replication TC11

Financial

Capital investment FC1

Operational and maintenance costs FC2

Simple Payback period FC3

Value addition to WAB FC4

Techno economic evaluation FC5

Easy availability of finance FC6

Multifold benefits FC7

Import needs of spares FC8

Social

Potential for Job creation SC1

Compatibility with local culture SC2

Improvement in quality of life by use of this technology SC3

Safety and health hazards SC4

Category Criterion Notation

Improvement of local technical skills and knowledge base SC5

Environm-en-

tal

Additional support services / utilities (water / energy) EC1

Environmental emissions EC2

Noise, vibration and odour EC3

Space and infrastructure requirement EC4

Contribution to WAB management EC5

Net carbon emissions EC6

While assessing the options based upon the above mentioned set of criteria, and with a view to

ensure optimal performance of the technology, the options were weighed for their suitability

and compatibility with the local conditions like the geographical and climatic conditions. It

was also considered that the selected technology should not have any side effects or secondary

impacts on either groundwater contamination or natural streams used by the local flora and

fauna as a drinking water resource. Depending on the extent of compatibility of the technology

systems, they have been rated Low Medium or High.

In case of the technology intervention, special preferential considerations were made to those

options which allow use of local materials and technical skills. This was primarily done to

ensure that the selected option is cost effective and environment friendly.

For ensuring the sustainability of the technology, it was felt necessary that the technology

should be such as to be able to use the local expertise for commissioning as well as operation

and management of the new technology system. The technologies have been rated Low, Me-

dium or High depending on the reverse order of level of expertise requirement. It means a

technology that requires very high skills would get the lowest rating and the one needing very

low skills would get rated highest.

Before making the decision about technology system option, the team checked up the track

record of the technology as well as vendors. Discussions were held with some of the users of

the technologies to gather market intelligence to help in deciding on this aspect.

As there is a chance that any new technology system might be built upon some existing system,

it was felt necessary that the new system should be compatible with the existing resources and

systems and the organization’s management styles. It is possible to make this decision with the

help of expert opinions supplemented by the technology fact sheets and vendor information.

With a view to get maximum benefit from the technology intervention, it was felt necessary to

check the flexibility or adaptability of the technology system for the future scenarios, including

scope for scaling up , if needed, expansion of the existing facility, or any possible technology

upgrades for improving efficiency in order to meet the changing needs.

To get the desired results, it was felt essential to ensure that the proposed technology has a

proven stability and consistency in its operation, under various scenarios or situations during

the operation phase such as shock loads, sudden variations in process parameters etc. For mak-

ing such a decision, the team sought expert opinions and the technology fact sheets.

Level of automation and sophistication of the proposed technology system were assessed based

on the collected information from the vendors, technology fact sheets and expert opinions. Be-

fore making the decision on the proposed technology system, the potential environmental,

health and safety risks to the workers, communities/ beneficiaries as well as to the environment/

biodiversity were also considered and assessed.

While identifying and selecting the proposed technology, it was considered whether it will

result in any type or kind of remediation or recovery/ augmentation of resources as a side effect

or additional tangible or intangible benefits, and has been considered in the making the deci-

sion. For this decision, the team relied on expert opinions and the technology fact sheets.

1.12 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment:

After the Tier 2 assessment, a number of unfeasible or unqualified EST options have been

eliminated in the scoping analysis and options with the best overall ratings are now subjected

to further and more severe Technical, Financial, Social and Environmental feasibility. As this

level of assessment is very situation-specific and thus the criteria at this stage demand a lot

more detailed and quantitative information to facilitate decision making.

Using all the information available up to this point, the team once again revised the weighted

sum matrix. In some instances, the team has modified the rating of technology systems arising

out of the new scoring based on additional information from the field feed back.

During the detailed assessment, as the technical criteria far out weighed the others, viz. the

financial, social and environmental, considerable higher consideration and close interpretation

of technical aspects was undertaken at this stage. Ranks of technological options based on total

scores of all criteria are provided in Table 1.12.

Based upon the above assessment and scoring, the top four favourable options were finalised

as below. Although the team initially was of the opinion that different criteria should have

differential weightages, however, at a later stage it was felt by the team that in the interest of

all the stake holders the same weightage will be assigned to each of the identified criteria.

Hence, the criteria were evaluated on a scale of 0-10. The score under each of the individual

criteria was tracked on a corresponding star diagram/s to identify the weaknesses of individual

technologies on individual criteria, so as to be able to take appropriate actions to strengthen

them.

Table 1.12: Ranks of Technology Options Based on Total Scores of All Criteria

Rank

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Co

de

Technology Name

Sub-total Score of Criterion Total

Technical Finan-

cial Social

Environ-

mental Score

1 A Charring

92 55 37 48 232

2 B Briquetting with press 93 53 37 45 228

3 C Gasification (Thermal

Mode) 78 41 30 41 190

4 D Gasification (Electri-

cal/DG Mode) 51 32 17 26 126

5 E Direct combustion 49 30 16 25 120

6 F Direct combustion for

cooking 49 30 16 25 120

7 G Gasification 42 26 14 22 104

8 H Briquetting hand 40 24 13 21 98

9 I Pressing 38 23 13 20 94

10 J Briquette press 36 22 12 20 90

11 K Carbonization 34 21 12 19 86

2 Selection of top ranked options

Table 2 provides the scores obtained by each of the technologies under the identified 30 criteria

under the Technical, Financial, Social and Environmental categories.

Table 2: Scores of different technologies

Sl. No.

Crite-ria Briquetting with press

Char-

ring

Gasification (Thermal Mode)

Gasification

(Electri-

cal/DG

Mode)

1 TC1 6 9 8 3

2 TC2 9 8 5 4

3 TC3 10 9 7 5

4 TC4 8 7 6 5

5 TC5 10 9 7 4

6 TC6 9 8 5 5

7 TC7 10 9 10 4

8 TC8 6 10 8 7

9 TC9 9 9 8 5

10 TC10 7 8 9 4

11 TC11 9 6 5 5

12 FC1 5 8 6 4

13 FC2 4 6 5 5

14 FC3 7 8 6 3

15 FC4 9 5 4 4

16 FC5 7 9 5 4

17 FC6 9 7 6 3

18 FC7 7 5 4 5

19 FC8 5 7 5 4

20 SC1 8 8 6 2

21 SC2 5 7 6 3

22 SC3 7 9 5 4

23 SC4 9 7 8 5

24 SC5 8 6 5 3

25 EC1 9 9 7 4

26 EC2 7 8 8 5

27 EC3 5 9 7 4

28 EC4 9 7 6 5

29 EC5 6 8 7 3

30 EC6 9 7 6 5

228 232 190 126

3 Graphical Representation of Scoring Results

Any such analytical results, if given in a standard tabular form containing just numerical values

do not provide the impact that a visual provides, especially when one needs to investigate more

closely the reasons for relative ranking of different technologies, and also to identify critical or

important criteria which need more serious and closer look. Hence, an effective way of em-

ploying a graphical representation of the results using star diagrams has been used here below.

Detailed descriptions of star diagrams arising out of Tier 3 assessment for environmental, fi-

nancial, technical and social aspects are as under.

3.1 Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment of Criteria

These technologies are, in the order of ranking:

“Charring by char drum or gasifier route”. It may be understood that while a gasifier

produces fuel gas, it only does so due to the volatiles in the biomass, whereas the fixed

carbon component gets converted in to Char. While the gas can be put to use for any thermal

application, it is the char that can be further converted in to another form of fuel. Depending

upon the character of the biomass, the proportion of char to the weight oof the biomass

ranges between 20% to 45%.

Mechanical briquetting with piston press.

WAB gasifier (preferably the down draft type) to generate gas and char as above. It must

be kept in mind that in most of the cases, it may not be possible to feed the WAB in it’s

natural form, due to it’s low bulk density. This calls for some form of densification to make

the WAB amenable to gasification process. Once operated, the gas provides a very conven-

ient way of using for most of the thermal applications. and

Electricity generation through a dual fuel mode Diesel Engine clubbed up with a generator

(DG set). However, it may be noted that even after almost three decades of their existence,

the WAB based gasifier manufacturers have not yet been able to provide a fool proof tech-

nology which ensures consistent and continuous duty cycle. At the same time, the yet un-

resolved technical issues related with tar generation, cracking and handling have not been

soleved. In most of the cases, a gasifier based DG set, while it promises up to 80% diesel

replacement, has two negatives associated with it. The first is the derating of the engine

capacity and the second being the requirement of frequent shut downs and cleaning require-

ments of the engine system due to tar.

Star diagrams

In the following paragraphs, various star diagrams have been referred and discussed.

It may be kept in mind that the colour scheme has been assigned to each of the four op-

tions, as shon below.

Briquetting (RED), Charring (BLUE), Gasification-Thermal Mode (PINK) and Gasifi-

cation in Electrical Mode (GREEN)

3.2 The Environmental Aspects

The category of environmental criteria has the highest priority for consideration, as most of the

environmental laws call for strict adherence to these issues. Therefore the environmental as-

pects are assessed first and only when there are no cases where a technology may not be ac-

ceptable, do we proceed with the rest of the criteria.

Figure 3.2 depicts a visual comparison of the environmental factors in case of the top most four

selected technologies.

Figure 3.2: Star diagram of selected technologies for environmental aspects.

From the diagram, it may be observed that on the criteria EC5 (Contribution to WAB manage-

ment), the technologies of Gasifier in electricity mode (shown red) and Briquetting with piston

press (shown green) faired very badly and were found to be very weak choices as ragards their

contribution to WAB management was concerned. In such a situation, these technologies need

to be considered only in those locations and specific cases where the WAB is abundantly avail-

able at a single source, like Rice Mills or Saw mills etc.

3.3 Star Diagram for Technical Aspects

Under technical aspects, 11 criteria were included in the analysis and the results are presented

in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Star Diagram for Technical Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Technologies

Just by way of clarification, it may be seen that while the top ranked technology viz: charring

(shown in blue) faired well on almost all the technical aspects, the Gasifier option in electrical

mode is a looser on almost all the technical aspects.

The first three technologies scored high marks under technical aspects excepting the gasifier in

electrical mode, it is found to be a looser once again. This observation indicates high technical

feasibility of the three options.

3.4 Star Diagram for Social Aspects

The social aspects include 5 criteria. The scoring of the four technologies is shown in Figure

3.4.

Figure 3.4: Star Diagram for Social Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Technologies

In this case Rank 2 and Rank 3 technologies (being similar applications) have an identical

shape in the star diagram with a total score of 74 out of 99 (i.e. 75%). Rank 1 and Rank 4

technologies have very similar total scores of 65 and 64 respectively. In general, all these tech-

nologies have lower performances in terms of social aspects, compared environmental and

technical aspects. In particular, scores against SC5, which represents the improvement of local

technical skills and knowledge base, is quite low. Therefore, in order to improve technology

performance against social criteria, some corrective interventions should be identified along-

side the implementation of the ranked technologies.

3.5 Star Diagram for Financial Aspects

This category has 8 criteria and the scores of the four technologies are illustrated in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Star Diagram for Financial Aspects for the Top Four Ranked Technologies

3.6 Composite Star Diagram for All Aspects

It is also useful to represent scores obtained by the four technologies against all the 29 criteria

in the same star diagram, as shown in Star 1, so that overall picture of the situation could be

observed. The results primarily indicate weightiness towards technical aspects in terms of their

performances.

Figure 3.6: Star Diagram of All Criteria for the Top Four Ranked Technologies

The weakest area is the social aspects. Some environment aspects and financial aspects also

show poor scores. In order to optimize the benefits of these technological interventions, a more

detail analysis is required, firstly to identify the root causes of these weaknesses, and secondly

to develop remedial measures to tackle them. Otherwise, technological implementation may

not be able to achieve the overall objective and expected outcome for the project.

3.7 Star Diagram for Comparison of Two Distinct Technologies viz: Bri-

quetting and Gasification:

A star diagram has been used to compare the scores of these two different technologies in terms

of their performances against all the criteria.

Figure 3.7: Star Diagram for Comparison of Two Technologies for Paddy Husk Management

For example, consider two technology options for the management of paddy husk: direct com-

bustion for process heat generation (Technology E, ranked 2nd) and densification through bri-

quetting (Technology A, ranked 11th). The scores are presented in Figure 3.7 above. It is evident

from the diagram that the direct combustion of paddy husk is better against almost all the cri-

teria than that for briquetting.

Section 2: Selection of most promising technologies.

4 The technology choice:

After conducting the three-tiered detailed SAT, the final decision about the technology choice

was made. Although the team had a tendency to select the option with the highest score, how-

ever, enough caution was exercised before doing so.

Finally, the outcomes of the monitoring and evaluation was submitted to the stakeholders’

group comprising government agencies, planners and other decision makers, in order to help

in situational analysis for similar future projects, and thus making better informed decisions.

4.1 Introduction

It was found that the scores for charring and briquetting showed a more favourable scenario

than the gasification in thermal or electrical mode.

Hence either charring or briquetting appeared to be the the best choice for the given situation

after detailed assessment as above.

Considering the future scenario and viability and justification of briquetting as the preferred

option, the team subjected the technology to a further test as follows.

While in a scoping analysis, only few important criteria are considered and a larger list of

criteria is used only afterwards, in the present case of Uttar Pradesh, the detailed analysis was

carried out at the scoping level itself, as it was felt that most of the considered technologies are

almost equally important.

A list of some of the Indian manufacturers of WAB technology systems is provided in Annex-

ure-1.

Annexure-1

List of manufacturers of biomass conversion systems in India

S.N Company Name Address Phone/Fax E-Mail / Website

1 Associated Engineering

Works

Gamini Compound, Main Road Tanuku

State : Andhra Pradesh- 534211 India

08819-222950Fax:

08819-224801

[email protected]

http://www.gasifiers.co.in

2 M/s. Ankur Scientific En-

ergy Technologies Pvt.

Ltd.,

Near Old Sama Jakat Naka, Vadodara-

390 008

0265-2793098,

Fax: 0265-2794042

[email protected],

[email protected],

www.ankurscientific.com

3 Infinite Energy Pvt. Lim-

ited

Head office, 302, 3rd Floor, Asal Cham-

ber-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-

110066, India

011-65191937,

65273819Fax: 011-

26348472

[email protected]

Regd Office: 1st Floor, Baba House,

149-A,Kilokri, Opp Maharani

Bagh,New Delhi - 110014, India

4 M/s. Cosmo Powertech

Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Cosmo Powertech Pvt.

Ltd.Devpuri, Near Jain Public School,

Dhamtari Road, Raipur-492015.

0771-5011262,

Fax: 0771-

5010190

cosmo_powertech.yahoo.co.in

5 M/s. Grain Processing In-

dustries (I) Pvt. Ltd.

29, Strand Road, Calcutta-700001. 033-22431639,

22101252,

22103368

Fax: 033-22204508

[email protected]

6 Desipower Pvt. Ltd. No.4, 2nd Floor, Above Amanath Co-

Operative Bank, 4th Main, KHM Block,

080-23431346,

41328160

[email protected]

R.T. Nagar Main Road. Bangalore- 560

032, Karnataka State,INDIA.

Fax:080-23431353.

7 M/s. Chanderpur Works

Pvt. Ltd.

Jorian, Delhi Road, Yamuna Nagar - 135

001, Haryana (India)

01732-203460-2

,26317811 Fax:

01732-203463

sudhiryn@sanchar-

net.in,[email protected]

[email protected],

[email protected]

8 M/s Infinite Energy Private

Limited

149-A, Baba House, 1st Floor, Kilokari,

Opp. Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-

110014

011-65273819

65191937

Fax: 011-26903696

[email protected], www.infini-

teenergyindia.com

9 M/s Rishipooja Energy &

Engineering Company

M.G. College Road Gorakhpur -273001

(U.P.)

0551-340 612,

339475

10 Southern Carbons (P) Ltd. VI/590 B, Development Area, Edayar,

Binanipuram P.O. Aluva, Cochin

683502, Kerala

0484-2540158

2532685 2543739

[email protected]

www.southerncarbons.org

11 Radhe Renewable Energy

Development Associate

D-110 Rajdoot Industrial Estate, 4,

Umakant Pandit UdyognagarNear

Mavdi Plot, Rajkot – 360 004 (Gujarat)

0281-571932

Fax: 0281- 372557

[email protected]

12 M/s Agro-power Gasifica-

tion Plant Pvt. Ltd.

B37/181, B1, Birdopur, Varanasi-

221010 (UP)

0542-2364285

13 M/s Ganesh Engineering

Works,

Poddar House, Jyoti Chowk, Buxer –

802101 Bihar.

06183-224571

Fax: 06183-227503

14 Lehra Agro Fuel Industries Ludhiana-Malerkotla Road, VPO Lehra,

Distt. Ludhiana - 141118.

0161-2885012,

2885013

[email protected], sales@lehraa-

grofuel.net

mailto:[email protected]

15 SANTEC AUTOMATION

(I) PVT. LTD.

Plot No. 93/3, Road No. 4, Mundka Udh-

yog Nagar, Mundka Extension, Rohtak

Road, Delhi - 110041, India

011-28342825,

28343082,

28343083,2834282

6, Fax: 011-

28343001

[email protected]

16 Karunanand Hydropneu-

matic Controls (P) Ltd.

Plot No. E- 3, Anandnagar, MIDC, Ad-

ditional Ambernath, Thane - 421 506,

Maharashtra (India)

0251-6552648,

2621923

Fax: 0251-2438752

[email protected]

www.karunanandpress.com

17 Shanta Engineering Pomal Industrial Area, Dhokali Kolshet

Road, Thane, Maharashtra - 400 607, In-

diaSend Enquiry

022-25893581

32503771

Fax: 022-25894727

Website: http://www.tensiletester-

manufacturer.com/agriculture-machin-

eries.html

18 Eureka Systems And Elec-

trodes Private Ltd

11/15A Selvarajapuram, Chinthamani

Pudurv Coimbatore - 641 103 Tamil

Nadu INDIA

0422-2687199,

2689475, 2688065

Fax: 0422-2681987

[email protected] ex-

[email protected]

www.eurekaelectrodes.com

19 Gangaa Machines No. 13/ 62 - C, Trichy Main Road, Chin-

thamani Pudur Post Coimbatore - 641

103, Tamil Nadu, India

0844-3238512,

2681469: Fax:

0844- 2681469

20 Hydrau Pneumatics Unit No. 19, Acharya Industrial Estate,

Behind Tejpal Industrial Estate, Sa-

kinaka Mumbai - 400 072, Maharashtra,

India

022-28504990

21 Essar_Engineers_Coimba-

tore

No. 519/1 - A, Athipalayam Road, Chin-

navedampatti Coimbatore - 641 006,

Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2012617

Fax: 0422-2669392

[email protected]

http://www.essarengineers.com/

22 Best Engineering Technol-

ogies

Plot No. 69 - A, No. 5-9-285/13, Rajiv

Gandhi Nagar, Industrial Estate,

Kukatpally - Hyderabad, Andhra Pra-

desh - 500 037, India

40-23070231,

23077478

Fax:040- 23077478

[email protected]

23 Deccan Dynamics No. 21, Deccan Estate, Mak India Mill

Road Coimbatore - 641014, Tamil Nadu,

India

0422-2628499

Fax:0422- 2628499

[email protected]

24 SJS Hydraulics 126-B, Trinity Nagar (Near Presentation

Matric Hr. Sec. School), Madukkarai

Main Road, SIDCO Post Coimbatore -

641 021, Tamil Nadu, India

+91-8447523810

25 Real Tech Engineering No. 172-C, Jayaprakash Nagar, 3rd

Street, Sanganoor Road, Ganapathy

(Po),Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu,

India

022-2333297

26 Metal Weld Engineering

Private Limited

No. 58, FB Scheme, No. 78, Vijay Nagar

Indore - 452 010, Madhya Pradesh, India

0731-2803528

Fax: 0731-2803528

27 Premur Impex Limited 44/45, King Road, Howrah - 711 101,

West Bengal, India

033-26660792

28 Heavy Engineering & Fab-

ricators

No. 32, 8th Street, Ganesh Layout, Ga-

napathy Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil

Nadu, India

0422-2330468,

2330412

Fax: 0422-2330468

29 Essar Engineers, Coimba-

tore

519/1A, Athipalayam Road, Chin-

navedampatti Post Coimbatore - 641


0422-2012948

30 The Adarsh Engineering

Works

Ghat Road, Near Union Bank Nagpur -

440 018, Maharashtra, India

0712-2725771

Fax: 0712-2725771

[email protected]

31 Lehra Agro Fuel Indus-

tries, Lehra ( Ludhiana)

Ludhiana - Malerkotla Road, K. M - 23,

V. P. O - Lehra Ludhiana - 141 118, Pun-

jab, India

0161-2885082,

2885083

[email protected],info@leh-

raagrofuel.net

32 Hunter Automations No. 208, Haripriya Complex, Habsiguda

X Road Hyderabad - 500 007, Andhra

Pradesh, India

040- 42218941

33 No.1 Hydraulics No. 74- B 2, Annayappa Gounder Street,

Nallampalayam, Ganapathy Coimbatore

- 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

34 Hydro Construction No. 18/1, Vivekanadar Road, Opposite

Saravana Complex, Udayampalayam,

Chinnavedampatti P. O. Coimbatore -


083-76806524

35 Ace Automation 228/1, M. G. R. Street, Sivanandapuram,

Saravanampatti Coimbatore - 641 035,

Tamil Nadu, India

Fax:0422-3026580

36 Shabnam Industries No. 798, Industrial Area- B Ludhiana -

141 003, Punjab, India

0161-2534499,

4644499

Fax: 5059766

[email protected],

[email protected]

37 G-Tech Engg. Foundry Co 164- A, Kulanthai Ammal Thottam, Op-

posite Roots Industries, Sanganoor

Road, Ganapathy Coimbatore - 641 006,

Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2333147

38 Universal Electro-Hydrau-

lic Machines Private Lim-

ited

No. 376, Varadharaj Layout No. 1, K. R.

Puram, Ganapathy, Post Coimbatore -


0422-2561533

Fax: 0422-2564226

39 Shree Khodiyar Engineer-

ing Works

Vavdi Survey No. 19, Plot No. 56, Op-

posite Poonam Dumper, Behind Tata

Motors, N. H. 8- B, Gondal Road Rajkot

- 360 004, Gujarat, India

[email protected], skbri-

[email protected]

40 Sun Hydro Systems No 56c,SIDCO Industrial Estate, ambat-

tur Chennai - 600 0 58, Tamil Nadu, In-

dia

044-25532308

Fax: 044-25532308

41 Logos Weld Products No. 67, Rangaswamy Lay Out, Lakshmi

Puram, Peelamedu Coimbatore - 641


0422-2599784

Fax: 0422-2600115

[email protected], sales@log-

osweld.com

42 Sree Engineering Works No. 7 - 1 - 1/ C, Phool Bagh, Ferozguda,

Bowenpally Hyderabad - 500 011, An-

dhra Pradesh, India

040-27752769,

27751790

Fax: 040-

27751790

43 Victory Industrial Hydrau-

lics

No. 72a, Ward No. 11, Opposite Sandfit

Foundry, Kannampalayam Village,

Sulur Coimbatore - 641402, Tamil

Nadu, India

0422-2682672

44 Universal Electro-Hydrau-

lic Machines Private Lim-

ited

No. 378, Varatharaj Layout, No. 1, P. N.

Palayam, Ganapathy, Post Coimbatore -


0422-2561533 [email protected]

45 Jay Industries Patel Estate, Mavdi Bypass, Opposite

Om Tools, Mavdi Rajkot - 360 004, Gu-

jarat, India

46 Ronak Agrotech Engineer-

ing Pvt. Ltd.

Plot - 39, Atlas Industrial Area, Near Ko-

thariya Railway Crossing, Opposite Ho-

tel Krishna Park, Off Rajkot - Gondal

NH - 27 Rajkot - 360 022, Gujarat, India

0281-2782513

Fax: 0281-2475014

[email protected],

[email protected],

[email protected]

47 Urja Bio Systems Sneh Complex, Behind Ankur Electron-

ics, Deep Banglow Chowk, Model Col-

ony, Shivaji Nagar Pune - 411 016, Ma-

harashtra, India

020-41222915 [email protected],pro-

[email protected]

48 Guru Nanak Agro Indus-

tries

V. P. O. Lehra, Near Dehlon Ludhiana -

141 118, Punjab, India

0161-2885207

49 Forsberg Agritech (IN-

DIA) Pvt. Ltd.

123, GIDC Estate, Makarpura, Baroda

Vadodara - 390 010, Gujarat, India

0265-2636926,

6590758

Fax: 0265-

2638583

50 Om Sons International, Lu-

dhiana

77-A, Industrial Estate Ludhiana - 141

003, Punjab , India

0161-4640008

51 Sre Dhanalakshmi Equip-

ments & Company

No. 7 / 38 - 5 - C, Kuttaithottom, Athipa-

layam Road, Chinnavedampatti Post Co-

imbatore - 641 049, Tamil Nadu , India

0422-4274550

52 Sai Solar Systems Srinagar Colony, Latur Udgir - 413 517,

Maharashtra, India

02382-225202



53 Jain Hydraulics Private

Limited

No. 10066, Multani Dhanda, First Floor,

Street No. 1, Pahar Ganj New Delhi -

110 055, Delhi , India

011-23610291,

23629609,

23523886

[email protected],

[email protected]

54 Nagpal Electrodes Private

Limited

Back Side Milk Plant, Near Guru Amar

Dass Nagar Jalandhar - 144 008, Punjab

, India

0181-2601382

55 Advance Hydrau Tech Pri-

vate Limited

Khasra No. 86/ 23, Village Ghevra, Near

Hiran Kudna Mor, Mundka Udyog Na-

gar New Delhi - 110 081, Delhi , India

011-28353700 [email protected], [email protected]

56 Ambe Hydraulics No. 101/4, Kadipur Industrial Area,

Patodi Road Gurgaon - 122001, Haryana

, India


57 Lehra Fuel Tech Private

Limited

Ludhiana - Malerkotla Road, Opposite

BP Petrol Pump, V. P. O. Jagera Ludhi-

ana - 141 117, Punjab , India

[email protected]

58 Jay Khodiyar Machine

Tools

Samrat Industrial Area, Street No. 2 Op-

posite Kaneriya Oil, Industries, Near

Atul Gas Agency Rajkot - 360 004, Gu-

jarat , India

0281-2367512,

2367784

[email protected],ex-

[email protected]

59 Suradhaa International No. 39, Kalaigner Road, Anna Nagar,

Pammal, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600

075, India

044-42800621 http://www.indiamart.com

60 Mico Hydraulics Plot No. 215/2, G. I. D. C., Phase - 2,

Dared Jamnagar - 361 005, Gujarat , In-

dia

0288-2730005,

5542287

[email protected]

61 SLR Enterprises No. 35, Ratnam Building, 3rd Main, 3rd

Cross, Mysore Road Bengaluru -

560001, Karnataka , India

080-26753908

62 Guru Kirpa Engineering

Works

G-1, 120-C, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1,

RIICO Sri Ganganagar - 335 002, Raja-

sthan, India

0154-2494375 [email protected],

63 Sunco Exporters & Prem-

ier Coir Products Private

Limited

No. 61/4e, Kanjampatti Road, Un-

jevellampatti Pollachi - 642 003, Tamil

Nadu , India

04259-284690,

288859

[email protected]

64 Aesa Air Engineering Pri-

vate Limited

357, Fie Industrial Estate, 2nd Floor,

Patparganj New Delhi - 110092, Delhi ,

India


65 Advance Hydrautech Pri-

vate Limited

B-91, Mangol Puri Industrial Area,

Phase-II, New Delhi - 110034, Delhi ,

India

011-47571100,

47571119

[email protected]

www.aesa-ae.com

66 Nahar Bio - Tech Ludhiana Malerkotla Road, K. M. - 23,

V. P. O. Lehra Ludhiana - 141 118, Pun-

jab , India


67 Agni Group Of Companies No. 15/2, IRTT College Road, Vasavi

College P. O. Erode - 638 316, Tamil

Nadu , India

[email protected]

68 Venkateshwara Industries Mulbagal - 563 131, Karnataka, India

69 Harini Industry No. 86- 2, Old Bye Pass Road, Opposite

Kumaragiri Mill, Thokkampatty Dhar-

mapuri - 636705, Tamil Nadu , India

04342-265051 http://www.harinibriquettes.com

70 Yokel Briquettes E- 6, Sarangapor Nizamabad - 503 001,

Andhra Pradesh , India

+(91)-

9581572777

71 Pilcon Engineers No. 44/45, Kings Road, Howrah Kolkata

- 711 101, West Bengal, India

033-26768330,

26660850

72 M/s. Advance Hydrautech Khasra No 86/23, Village Ghevra, Near

Hiran Kudna Mor, Mundka Udyog Na-

gar, Rohtak Road New Delhi - 110001,

Delhi , India

011-28353700 http://www.advancehy-

drautech.in/scrap-baler.html

73 Sheet Metal Solutions Regd. Off.: Loha Mandi, Naraina,

Works : Tikri Border New Delhi -

110028, Delhi, India

011-25894774 http://in.linkedin.com/pub/raahul-

sawhney/11/883/a86

74 Weltech Engineering Com-

pany

NH Cheruvannur Post Offive, Feroke,

Kozhikode, Kerala - 673631, India

0495-2482821

2482489

75 Advance Hydrau- Tech

Private Limited

Send Enquiry: B- 91, Mangol Puri, In-

dustrial Area, Phase- II, Delhi - 110 083,

India

011-27015317

76 Radhe Renewable Energy

Development Private Lim-

ited

Plot No. 2621/22, Road No. D/2, Gate

No. 1, Lodhika, GIDC, Rajkot, Gujarat -

360 021, India

02827-287888

Fax: 02827-287889

[email protected]

77 MHS Industries Near Sarvodya Sugar Factory, At Post

Karandwadi, Taluka Walwa, Near San-

gli, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 416 301, In-

dia

Annexure-2

A typical example of a quotation offered by a supplier

Company Name Name not given for confidentiality pur-

poses

Equipment / Machine Name: Thermal Mode Biomass Gasifier

Application of machine GASIFIER

Technical Specification 1,500,000 Kcal/Hr Output

Man Power requirement 4 Persons needed.

Electrical Power requirements 15 KW.

Total Weight of complete plant 10 Tons

Size of equipment during transportation (e.g.

whether it can be transported in a full truck,

part truck load, container etc.) 40’ Container Needed.

Land requirement for commissioning 30’ x 40’ x 25’ Ht.

Total Land Requirement 2500 Sq.Ft.

Raw Material Moisture %

Production capacities for different biomass Works on Solid Biomass Only

(e.g. Groundnut Shell, Saw Dust, Sugarcane Ba-

gasse, Cotton Stalk, Rice Husk, pulses stalks, cere-

als stalks etc.)

Scope of Supply.

Main Unit YES

Material Handling Unit NO

Continues Wear & Tears Spares YES

Any others ---------

Price of equipment US$ 60,000

Commercial Terms & Conditions To be negotiated.

Payment Terms 50% Advance & Balance Before Dis-

patch

Equipment Delivery terms: Negotiable

Transportation FOB –Chennai, India.

Delivery Schedule 4 Months

Offer Validity Valid Upto July,2013.

General Terms & Conditions Negotiated

Packing & Forwarding Included in FOB Rate.

Warrantee / Guarantee Applicable & To be negotiated.

Inspection Acceptable.

Erection & Commissioning Will be done at Extra Cost

Training Free Training will be given

Jurisdiction for legal requirements Hyderabad-India.

Report on - United Nations India

Documents

Transcript of Report on - United Nations India