1

“Waste Agricultural Biomass for Energy:

Resource Conservation and GHG Emission Reduc-tion”

Outputs IV of the SSFA

Report on assessment of various technologies for converting waste agricultural biomass into energy as per the data generated in outputs I & II, and by apply-ing the Methodology of Sustainability Assessment of Technologies and thus selection of most promising

technologies.

CONTENTS

Chapter No.

Sub Chapter

No.

Title Page

1 Implementation of SAT Methodology 41.1 Tier 1: Screening Criteria 61.2 Tier 2: Scoping Analysis: 81.3 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment Criteria 81.3.1 The decision making about the final choice 91.4 Listing the evaluation criteria appropriate to the situation. 101.5 Application of sat 101.5.1 Conducting the situation analysis 101.5.2 Defining Problems / Issues 11

1.5.3 Baseline Data Collection 111.5.4 Stakeholder Consultation 111.5.5 Steps for the stake holders workshop 131.6 Issues of concern of the stakeholders: 131.7 Solution for scoping analysis (tier 2 assessment) 151.8 Strategic level assessment 151.9 Operational level assessment 151.10 Solution for screening of technologies (tier 1) 161.11 Setting criteria for scoping analysis 181.12 Tier 3: Detailed Assessment: 20

2 Selection of top ranked options 223 Graphical Representation of Scoring Results 23

3.1 Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment of Criteria 233.2 The Environmental Aspects 243.3 Star Diagram for Technical Aspects 253.4 Star Diagram for Social Aspects 273.5 Star Diagram for Financial Aspects 283.6 Composite Star Diagram for All Aspects 293.7 Star Diagram for Comparison of Two Distinct Technolo-

gies viz: Briquetting and Gasification:30

Section 2: Selection of most promising technologies. 314 The technology choice: 31

4.1 Introduction 31

2

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 Criteria 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

Technologies

26

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

Technologies

27

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

Technologies

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

3

1 Implementation of SAT MethodologyAs stated above, the SAT methodology incorporates assessments at both strategic level and

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

sion 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 ap-

plied 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 primarily 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 application 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 require-

ment. In other words, the tiered process makes comprehensive information collection require-

ment 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 qualita-

tive 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 additional criteria. Once the decision is made on the best resource-technology-ap-

plication 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 evaluate 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/adapta-

tion 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 beyond the mere numbers, is required. The SAT methodology also makes pro-

vision to use the experience gained through the implementation of the present project for ei-

Page 4

ther 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 so-

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

source-technology-application options. Further, development of customized criteria and indi-

cators applicable to specific situations is required to ensure the rationality. In order to facili-

tate 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 methodology. The key elements in this approach are the weights to be assigned to crite-

ria and scores to be assigned to indicators. This process also facilitates sensitivity studies and

scenario building 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

Page 5

.

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 CriteriaFor 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 / N

ot se

lect

ed)

Sim

plic

ity o

f tec

hnol

ogy

and

ease

of o

pera

tion

Mul

tiple

WA

B u

sage

Spac

e re

quir

emen

t for

the

plan

t and

equ

ipm

ent

Eco

nom

ics o

f ope

ratio

n

Env

iron

men

tally

frie

ndly

Screw type briquetting machine SelectedSmall scale charcoal kiln SelectedPaddy husk cook stove SelectedPaddy husk gas stove Not se-

lectedCharcoal making cook stove SelectedPaddy husk stove cum cabinet dryer

Not se-lected

Paddy husk stove cum tray dryer Not se-lected

Direct combustion / direct heat-ing

Not se-lected

Page 6

Technology Criteria for Screening

(Sel

ecte

d / N

ot se

lect

ed)

Sim

plic

ity o

f tec

hnol

ogy

and

ease

of o

pera

tion

Mul

tiple

WA

B u

sage

Spac

e re

quir

emen

t for

the

plan

t and

equ

ipm

ent

Eco

nom

ics o

f ope

ratio

n

Env

iron

men

tally

frie

ndly

Boiler steam turbine Not se-lected

Gasifier cum internal combus-tion engine

Selected

Gasifier in thermal mode SelectedStraw baler SelectedPress or extruder Not se-

lectedPaper pulping Not se-

lectedBiogas 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 environmental 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 considered. Decision on this criterion was made on the basis of information on technology fact sheets, expert opinions and information from vendors.

Page 7

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 sys-

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

ate 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 prelimi-

nary 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 CriteriaIn 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

appropriate stages, the team also sought opinion and advise of expert to study and analyze the

collected 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

Page 8

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 avail-

able information.

Step-2: Design

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

cision. Determining success criteria.

Step-3: Choice

Processing the alternatives and ranking them.

Table 1.2: Screening of Technologies*

Technology Criteria for Screening

(Sel

ecte

d / N

ot se

lect

ed)

Sim

plic

ity o

f tec

hnol

ogy

and

ease

of o

pera

tion

Mul

tiple

WA

B u

sage

Spac

e re

quire

men

t for

the

plan

t and

equ

ipm

ent

Econ

omic

s of o

pera

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

lly fr

iend

ly

Screw type briquetting machine Selected

Small scale charcoal kiln Selected

Paddy husk cook stove Selected

Charcoal making cook stove Selected

Gasifier cum internal

combustion engine

Selected

Straw baler Selected

Gasifier in thermal mode Selected

Page 9

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 weight-

ing. 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/ disadvan-

tages) 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 dis-

cussed 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 deci-

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

appropriate skill and expertise needed for using the same.

1.5 Application of satThe 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 analysisThe 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;

Page 10

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 implemented in the said dis-

trict of Uttar Pradesh was initiated with the final objective of

developing a pilot project based on a selected resource-tech-

nology combination as a mean of managing waste. Given its

inherent properties, it is prudent to consider the WAB as a re-

source rather than dispose it off in an unsustainable manner.

The project was therefore intended to explore the most appro-

priate ways of converting these resources into value added

products or materials, thereby minimizing the environmental

and social issues which have traditionally arisen due to im-

proper management practices. In doing so, every effort has

been made to explore and enable the generation of additional

income to the local community.

1.5.3 Baseline Data CollectionBaseline 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 signifi-

cant generation potentials. Pl. ref. Box 1.5.3

1.5.4 Stakeholder ConsultationA 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 Committee (7 nos.);

Representatives of 3 Women Groups;

Community Development Group;

Representative of the Youth Farmer Group;

Page 11

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 subsequently acquired data. Baseline data therefore helps assess the impact of any actions taken for a project (in this case, the implementation of a technology).

At this stage of the process, the stake-holder team must concentrate on col-lecting baseline data relevant to the defined problem. Baseline data should be robust enough to assist analysis and interpretation of data in the con-text of the problem. The brief of the baseline data collected by the stake-holders and its analysis for the said case is given below.

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.).

Page 12

1.5.5 Steps for the stake holders workshopThe 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 nat-

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

Page 13

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 (en-

ergy 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

Page 14

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 assessmentAs the next step, planners, decision-makers, mayors / elected representatives should brain-

storm and study various options at the policy and planning levels. Considering the local con-

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

1.9 Operational level assessmentOnce 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

.

Figure 1.9: Screening Criteria (Tier 1)

Page 15

Screening criteria #1

Screening criteria #2

Screening criteria #3

Screening criteria #4

Screening criteria #5

There should be no policy restriction

Wherever relevant, there should be alignment with Multilateral environmental agreements

(MEAs) and National PlansThere should be a positive / no impact on existing user of WAB

Project objectives must be achieved

Technology should have a positive social impact / generate employment

Screening criteria #6

Screening criteria #7

Screening criteria #8

Technology should be economically viable / affordable

Technology should demonstrate good environmental performance

Technology should be mature

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.

Page 16

Table 1.10: Screening of Technologies:

Tech

nolo

gy

Are

ther

e P

olic

y

Res

trict

ions

Is T

here

Alig

nmen

t with

MEA

s and

Nat

iona

l Pla

ns

Are

ther

e po

sitiv

e / z

ero

impa

cts o

n ex

istin

g us

ers

of W

AB

Are

Pro

ject

Obj

ectiv

es

Ach

ieve

d

Is th

e Te

chno

logy

Econ

omic

Via

ble

Doe

s Tec

hnol

ogy

Exhi

bit

Goo

d En

viro

nmen

tal

Perf

orm

ance

Is T

here

a P

ositi

ve S

ocia

l

Impa

ct (E

mpl

oym

ent/

Inco

me

gene

ratio

n)

Is th

e Te

chno

logy

Pro

ven

Out

com

e

Favourable outcome for the

criterionNo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --

Screw type briquetting machine SelectedSmall scale charcoal kiln SelectedPaddy husk cook stove SelectedCharcoal making cook stove Selected

Gasifier cum internal combustion engine

Not Se-lected

Gasifier (Thermal mode) SelectedStraw baler Selected

Page 17

1.11 Setting criteria for scoping analysisFor 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,

regulations and standards

TC3

Adaptability of technologies TC4

Use of local skills and scope for local capacity building for

operation and maintenance

TC5

Use of local material and skills for fabrication and operation TC6

Ease in availability of technical assistance during

commissioning 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

Page 18

Category Criterion Notation

Improvement of local technical skills and knowledge base SC5

Environm-

ental

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 suitabil-

ity 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 sec-

ondary 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 en-

sure 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,

Medium 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 sys-

tem, it was felt necessary that the new system should be compatible with the existing re-

sources and systems and the organization’s management styles. It is possible to make this de-

Page 19

cision with the help of expert opinions supplemented by the technology fact sheets and ven-

dor 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 fu-

ture 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

making 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 opin-

ions. Before making the decision on the proposed technology system, the potential environ-

mental, health and safety risks to the workers, communities/ beneficiaries as well as to the en-

vironment/ biodiversity were also considered and assessed.

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

sult 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 aris-

ing 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 fi-

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

Page 20

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

tal 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 indi-

vidual 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

hnol

ogy

Cod

e

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 (Electrical/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 1048 H Briquetting hand 40 24 13 21 989 I Pressing 38 23 13 20 94

10 J Briquette press 36 22 12 20 9011 K Carbonization 34 21 12 19 86

Page 21

2 Selection of top ranked optionsTable 2 provides the scores obtained by each of the technologies under the identified 30 cri-

teria under the Technical, Financial, Social and Environmental categories.

Table 2: Scores of different technologies

Sl. No.

Cri-teria

Briquetting with press

Char-ring

Gasification (Thermal Mode)

Gasification (Electrical/DG Mode)

1 TC1 6 9 8 32 TC2 9 8 5 43 TC3 10 9 7 54 TC4 8 7 6 55 TC5 10 9 7 46 TC6 9 8 5 57 TC7 10 9 10 48 TC8 6 10 8 79 TC9 9 9 8 5

10 TC10 7 8 9 411 TC11 9 6 5 512 FC1 5 8 6 413 FC2 4 6 5 514 FC3 7 8 6 315 FC4 9 5 4 416 FC5 7 9 5 417 FC6 9 7 6 318 FC7 7 5 4 519 FC8 5 7 5 420 SC1 8 8 6 221 SC2 5 7 6 322 SC3 7 9 5 423 SC4 9 7 8 524 SC5 8 6 5 325 EC1 9 9 7 426 EC2 7 8 8 527 EC3 5 9 7 428 EC4 9 7 6 529 EC5 6 8 7 3

Page 22

30 EC6 9 7 6 5228 232 190 126

3 Graphical Representation of Scoring Results Any such analytical results, if given in a standard tabular form containing just numerical val-

ues 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 employing 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 CriteriaThese 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

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

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

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

istence, the WAB based gasifier manufacturers have not yet been able to provide a fool

proof technology which ensures consistent and continuous duty cycle. At the same time,

the yet unresolved 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

Page 23

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 requirements 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 Gasi-fication 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

aspects 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.

Page 24

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 man-

agement), 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 ra-

gards their contribution to WAB management was concerned. In such a situation, these tech-

nologies need to be considered only in those locations and specific cases where the WAB is

abundantly available 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.

Page 25

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 electri-

cal 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 tech-

nical feasibility of the three options.

Page 26

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

technologies 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 tech-

nology performance against social criteria, some corrective interventions should be identified

alongside the implementation of the ranked technologies.

Page 27

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

Page 28

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 implementa-

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

Page 29

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

combustion for process heat generation (Technology E, ranked 2nd) and densification through

briquetting (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 criteria than that for briquetting.

Page 30

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 IntroductionIt 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 cri-

teria 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 An-

nexure-1.

Page 31

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

gasfromwood@gmail.com http://www.gasi-fiers.co.in

2 M/s. Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Near Old Sama Jakat Naka, Vadodara-390 008 0265-2793098, Fax: 0265-2794042

ascent@ankurscientific.com, info@ankursci-entific.com, www.ankurscientific.com

3 Infinite Energy Pvt. Limited Head office, 302, 3rd Floor, Asal Chamber-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066, India

011-65191937, 65273819Fax: 011-26348472

infenergy@gmail.com

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 Indus-tries (I) Pvt. Ltd.

29, Strand Road, Calcutta-700001. 033-22431639, 22101252, 22103368

Fax: 033-22204508

info@gpenergy.net

6 Desipower Pvt. Ltd. No.4, 2nd Floor, Above Amanath Co-Operative Bank, 4th Main, KHM Block, R.T. Nagar Main Road. Bangalore- 560 032, Karnataka State,IN-DIA.

080-23431346, 41328160

Fax:080-23431353.

kr@desipower.com

7 M/s. Chanderpur Works Pvt. Ltd.

Jorian, Delhi Road, Yamuna Nagar - 135 001, Haryana (India)

01732-203460-2 ,26317811 Fax: 01732-203463

sudhiryn@sancharnet.in,info@chanderpur.-com cpwindia@gmail.com, chanderpur@red-iffmail.com

Page 32

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

infinitenergy@vsnl.net, www.infiniteener-gyindia.com

9 M/s Rishipooja Energy & Engi-neering Company

M.G. College Road Gorakhpur -273001 (U.P.) 0551-340 612, 339475

10 Southern Carbons (P) Ltd. VI/590 B, Development Area, Edayar, Bina-nipuram P.O. Aluva, Cochin 683502, Kerala

0484-2540158 2532685 2543739

southerncarb@gmail.com

www.southerncarbons.org

11 Radhe Renewable Energy De-velopment Associate

D-110 Rajdoot Industrial Estate, 4, Umakant Pandit UdyognagarNear Mavdi Plot, Rajkot – 360 004 (Gujarat)

0281-571932

Fax: 0281- 372557

radheengineering@radhegroup.com

12 M/s Agro-power Gasification 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

info@lehraagrofuel.net, sales@lehraagrofu-el.net

15 SANTEC AUTOMATION (I) PVT. LTD.

Plot No. 93/3, Road No. 4, Mundka Udhyog Nagar, Mundka Extension, Rohtak Road, Delhi - 110041, India

011-28342825, 28343082, 28343083,28342826, Fax: 011-28343001

sales@santecindia.com

16 Karunanand Hydropneumatic Controls (P) Ltd.

Plot No. E- 3, Anandnagar, MIDC, Additional Ambernath, Thane - 421 506, Maharashtra (In-dia)

0251-6552648, 2621923

Fax: 0251-2438752

balingpres@gmail.com

www.karunanandpress.com

17 Shanta Engineering Pomal Industrial Area, Dhokali Kolshet Road, Thane, Maharashtra - 400 607, IndiaSend En-quiry

022-25893581 32503771

Website: http://www.tensiletestermanufac-turer.com/agriculture-machineries.html

Page 33

Fax: 022-25894727

18 Eureka Systems And Electrodes Private Ltd

11/15A Selvarajapuram, Chinthamani Pudurv Coimbatore - 641 103 Tamil Nadu INDIA

0422-2687199, 2689475, 2688065

Fax: 0422-2681987

purchase@eurekaelectrodes.com export-s@eurekaelectrodes.com

www.eurekaelectrodes.com

19 Gangaa Machines No. 13/ 62 - C, Trichy Main Road, Chinthamani 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, Sakinaka Mumbai - 400 072, Maharashtra, India

022-28504990

21 Essar_Engineers_Coimbatore No. 519/1 - A, Athipalayam Road, Chin-navedampatti Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2012617

Fax: 0422-2669392

essareng@yahoo.com

http://www.essarengineers.com/

22 Best Engineering Technologies Plot No. 69 - A, No. 5-9-285/13, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Industrial Estate, Kukatpally - Hyder-abad, Andhra Pradesh - 500 037, India

40-23070231, 23077478

Fax:040- 23077478

bestengineering@gmail.com

23 Deccan Dynamics No. 21, Deccan Estate, Mak India Mill Road Coimbatore - 641014, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2628499 Fax:0422- 2628499

deccandynamics@yahoo.com

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

Page 34

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

033-26660792

28 Heavy Engineering & Fabrica-tors

No. 32, 8th Street, Ganesh Layout, Ganapathy Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2330468, 2330412

Fax: 0422-2330468

29 Essar Engineers, Coimbatore 519/1A, Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedampatti Post Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2012948

30 The Adarsh Engineering Works Ghat Road, Near Union Bank Nagpur - 440 018, Maharashtra, India

0712-2725771

Fax: 0712-2725771

theadarshrasraj@yahoo.in

31 Lehra Agro Fuel Industries, Lehra ( Ludhiana)

Ludhiana - Malerkotla Road, K. M - 23, V. P. O - Lehra Ludhiana - 141 118, Punjab, India

0161-2885082, 2885083

lehraagrofuel@gmail.com,info@lehraagrofu-el.net

32 Hunter Automations No. 208, Haripriya Complex, Habsiguda X Road Hyderabad - 500 007, Andhra Pradesh, In-dia

040- 42218941

33 No.1 Hydraulics No. 74- B 2, Annayappa Gounder Street, Nal-lampalayam, Ganapathy Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

34 Hydro Construction No. 18/1, Vivekanadar Road, Opposite Sara-vana Complex, Udayampalayam, Chin-navedampatti P. O. Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

083-76806524

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

exports@shabnamindustries.com, vishnu.aro-ra@hotmail.com

Page 35

37 G-Tech Engg. Foundry Co 164- A, Kulanthai Ammal Thottam, Opposite Roots Industries, Sanganoor Road, Ganapathy Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2333147

38 Universal Electro-Hydraulic Machines Private Limited

No. 376, Varadharaj Layout No. 1, K. R. Pu-ram, Ganapathy, Post Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2561533

Fax: 0422-2564226

39 Shree Khodiyar Engineering Works

Vavdi Survey No. 19, Plot No. 56, Opposite Poonam Dumper, Behind Tata Motors, N. H. 8- B, Gondal Road Rajkot - 360 004, Gujarat, In-dia

info@skbriquettes.com, skbriquettes@gmail.-com

40 Sun Hydro Systems No 56c,SIDCO Industrial Estate, ambattur Chennai - 600 0 58, Tamil Nadu, India

044-25532308

Fax: 044-25532308

41 Logos Weld Products No. 67, Rangaswamy Lay Out, Lakshmi Puram, Peelamedu Coimbatore - 641 004, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2599784

Fax: 0422-2600115

admin@logosweld.com, sales@logosweld.-com

42 Sree Engineering Works No. 7 - 1 - 1/ C, Phool Bagh, Ferozguda, Bowenpally Hyderabad - 500 011, Andhra Pradesh, India

040-27752769, 27751790

Fax: 040-27751790

43 Victory Industrial Hydraulics No. 72a, Ward No. 11, Opposite Sandfit Foundry, Kannampalayam Village, Sulur Coim-batore - 641402, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2682672

44 Universal Electro-Hydraulic Machines Private Limited

No. 378, Varatharaj Layout, No. 1, P. N. Palayam, Ganapathy, Post Coimbatore - 641 006, Tamil Nadu, India

0422-2561533 uniehyd1@gmail.com

45 Jay Industries Patel Estate, Mavdi Bypass, Opposite Om Tools, Mavdi Rajkot - 360 004, Gujarat, India

46 Ronak Agrotech Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Plot - 39, Atlas Industrial Area, Near Kothariya Railway Crossing, Opposite Hotel Krishna Park, Off Rajkot - Gondal NH - 27 Rajkot - 360

0281-2782513 ronakindus@gmail.com,

Page 36

022, Gujarat, India Fax: 0281-2475014 info@ronakbriquetting.com,

info@ronakindustries.in

47 Urja Bio Systems Sneh Complex, Behind Ankur Electronics, Deep Banglow Chowk, Model Colony, Shivaji Nagar Pune - 411 016, Maharashtra, India

020-41222915 gajananpatil29@rediffmail.com,projects@ur-jabiosystems.com

48 Guru Nanak Agro Industries V. P. O. Lehra, Near Dehlon Ludhiana - 141 118, Punjab, India

0161-2885207

49 Forsberg Agritech (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.

123, GIDC Estate, Makarpura, Baroda Vado-dara - 390 010, Gujarat, India

0265-2636926, 6590758

Fax: 0265-2638583

50 Om Sons International, Ludhi-ana

77-A, Industrial Estate Ludhiana - 141 003, Punjab , India

0161-4640008

51 Sre Dhanalakshmi Equipments & Company

No. 7 / 38 - 5 - C, Kuttaithottom, Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedampatti Post Coimbatore - 641 049, Tamil Nadu , India

0422-4274550

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

info@jainhydraulics.com, jhpl@vsnl.com

54 Nagpal Electrodes Private Lim-ited

Back Side Milk Plant, Near Guru Amar Dass Nagar Jalandhar - 144 008, Punjab , India

0181-2601382

55 Advance Hydrau Tech Private Limited

Khasra No. 86/ 23, Village Ghevra, Near Hiran Kudna Mor, Mundka Udyog Nagar New Delhi - 110 081, Delhi , India

011-28353700 info@ahtpl.in, netmart@ahtpl.in

56 Ambe Hydraulics No. 101/4, Kadipur Industrial Area, Patodi Road Gurgaon - 122001, Haryana , India

0124-6523447 ambehydraulics@gmail.com

Page 37

57 Lehra Fuel Tech Private Lim-ited

Ludhiana - Malerkotla Road, Opposite BP Petrol Pump, V. P. O. Jagera Ludhiana - 141 117, Punjab , India

info@lehrafuel.com

58 Jay Khodiyar Machine Tools Samrat Industrial Area, Street No. 2 Opposite Kaneriya Oil, Industries, Near Atul Gas Agency Rajkot - 360 004, Gujarat , India

0281-2367512, 2367784

info@jaykhodiyargroup.com,export@-jaykhodiyargroup.com

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 , India

0288-2730005, 5542287

prakash@micohydraulics.com

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, Rajasthan, India

0154-2494375 info@gurukirpa.com,

63 Sunco Exporters & Premier Coir Products Private Limited

No. 61/4e, Kanjampatti Road, Unjevellampatti Pollachi - 642 003, Tamil Nadu , India

04259-284690, 288859 coirplus@gmail.com

64 Aesa Air Engineering Private Limited

357, Fie Industrial Estate, 2nd Floor, Patparganj New Delhi - 110092, Delhi , India

011-43004800 aesa.in@aesa-ae.com

65 Advance Hydrautech Private Limited

B-91, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi - 110034, Delhi , India

011-47571100, 47571119

info@ahtpl.in

www.aesa-ae.com

66 Nahar Bio - Tech Ludhiana Malerkotla Road, K. M. - 23, V. P. O. Lehra Ludhiana - 141 118, Punjab , India

0161-2885231 info@naharbiotech.com

67 Agni Group Of Companies No. 15/2, IRTT College Road, Vasavi College P. O. Erode - 638 316, Tamil Nadu , India

info@agnigroupcos.com

68 Venkateshwara Industries Mulbagal - 563 131, Karnataka, India

69 Harini Industry No. 86- 2, Old Bye Pass Road, Opposite Ku- 04342-265051 http://www.harinibriquettes.com

Page 38

maragiri Mill, Thokkampatty Dharmapuri - 636705, Tamil Nadu , India

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 Nagar, Rohtak Road New Delhi - 110001, Delhi , India

011-28353700 http://www.advancehydrautech.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 Company NH Cheruvannur Post Offive, Feroke, Kozhikode, Kerala - 673631, India

0495-2482821 2482489

75 Advance Hydrau- Tech Private Limited

Send Enquiry: B- 91, Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase- II, Delhi - 110 083, India

011-27015317

76 Radhe Renewable Energy De-velopment Private Limited

Plot No. 2621/22, Road No. D/2, Gate No. 1, Lodhika, GIDC, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360 021, In-dia

02827-287888

Fax: 02827-287889

info@radheengineering.com

77 MHS Industries Near Sarvodya Sugar Factory, At Post Karand-wadi, Taluka Walwa, Near Sangli, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 416 301, India

Page 39

Annexure-2

A typical example of a quotation offered by a supplier

Company Name Name not given for confidentiality

purposes

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

Bagasse, Cotton Stalk, Rice Husk, pulses stalks,

cereals 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

Dispatch

Equipment Delivery terms: Negotiable

Transportation FOB –Chennai, India.

Delivery Schedule 4 Months

Page 40

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.

Page 41