For decentralized biomass plants using farm residue as input, the economic viability study are available in literature. The study calculates the different aspects of the cost of biomass power plants such as the cost of capital investment, running and maintenance of plants, residue processing costs, and the economic value equivalent of embedded nutrients (NPK) that are lost from residues. A comparison is drawn between the costs and revenue from the plant’s power generation. The word modest is used for giving analogy to the power plant which has capacity higher than decentralized power plants and lower than centralized power plants. In Gujarat there exists total four biomass power plants which should be considered in the modest category. The aim is to establish the cost efficiency of adding soil nutritious chemical fertilizers and using agricultural residues for the purposes of energy-building biomass (rather than incorporating soil). To study economic viability, the discounted rate method is used. In our paper, a modest / centralized biomass power plant has been studied for economic feasibility. For this, we have selected the state of Gujarat and followed district-wise analysis. We have used the penalty method given in optimization research in order to calculate transportation and other costs. Also, we studied a soil nutrition index for measuring soil health and the proportions of N, P and K in the soil. For annual crop production, the data used is district-wise for Gujarat state for the year 2011-12.
HiloidhariM., DasD. and BaruahD., Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in India, Renew Sus Energy Rev32 (2014), 504–512.
2.
CardoenD., JoshiP., DielsL., SarmaP.M. and PantD., Agriculture biomass in India: Part 1. estimation and characterization, Resour Conservation and Recycl102 (2015), 39–48.
3.
MonfortiF., LugatoE., MotolaV., BodisK., ScarlatN. and DallemandJ.-F., Optimal energy use of agricultural crop residues preserving soil organic carbon stocks in europe, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews44(Supplement C) (2015), 519–529.
4.
EricssonK. and NilssonL.J., Assessment of the potential biomass supply in europe using a resource-focused approach, Biomass and Bioenergy30(1) (2006), 1–15.
5.
SimonD., TynerW.E. and JacquetF., Economic analysis of the potential of cellulosic biomass available in france from agricultural residue and energy crops, Bio Energy Research, 3(2) (2010), 183–193.
6.
GojiyaA. and DebD., On feasibility of biomass power plant with agricultural waste processing, in: 2017 6th International Conference on Computer Applications In Electrical Engineering-Recent Advances (CERA), IEEE, 2017 (Oct. 2017).
7.
GojiyaA., DebD. and IyerK., Feasibility study of power generation from agricultural residue in comparison with soil incorporation, Renewable Energy (Elsevier)134 (2019), 416–425.
8.
LiuH., YinX. and WuC., Comparative evaluation of biomass power generation systems in china using hybrid life cycle inventory analysis, The Scientific World Journal2014 (2014), 1–14.
9.
RamamurthiP.V., FernandesM.C., NielsenP.S. and NunesC.P., Logistics cost analysis of rice residues for second generation bioenergy production in ghana, Bioresource Technology173 (2014), 429–438.
10.
OmariR., Sarkodee-AddoE., FujiiY., OikawaY. and Bellingrath-KimuraS., Impacts of fertilization type on soil microbial biomass and nutrient availability in two agroecological zones of ghana, Agronomy7(3) (2017), 55.
11.
DotaniyaM.L., DattaS.C., BiswasD.R., DotaniyaC.K., MeenaB.L., RajendiranS., RegarK.L. and LataM., Use of sugarcane industrial by-products for improving sugarcane productivity and soil health, International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture5(3) (2016), 185–194.
12.
CarmoM., García-RuizR., FerreiraM.I. and DomingosT., The np-k soil nutrient balance of portuguese cropland in the s: The transition from organic to chemical fertilization, Scientific Reports7(1) (2017).
13.
WrobleJ., FrederickT., FrameA. and ValleroD., Comparison of soil sampling and analytical methods for asbestos at the sumas mountain asbestos site—working towards a toolbox for better assessment, PLoS One12(7) (2017), e0180210 (Jul. 2017).
14.
Ministry of Agriculture, India, Farmers’ Portal. Minimum Support Price [Updated 7 June 2017; Cited 17 July 2017] Available at: http://farmer.gov.in/mspstatements.aspx (2017).
15.
HudaA., MekhilefS. and AhsanA., Biomass energy in bangladesh: Current status and prospects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews30 (2014), 504–517.
16.
BuragohainB., MahantaP. and MoholkarV.S., Biomass gasification for decentralized power generation: The Indian perspective, Renew Sust Energy Rev14(1) (2010), 73–92.
17.
TripathiA.K., IyerP., KandpalT.C. and SinghK., Assessment of availability and costs of some agricultural residues used as feedstocks for biomass gasification and briquetting in India, Energy Conversion and Management39(15) (1998), 1611–1618.
18.
BatidziraiB., ValkM., WickeB., JungingerM., DaioglouV., EulerW. and FaaijA., Current and future technical, economic and environmental feasibility of maize and wheat residues supply for biomass energy application: Illustrated for south africa, Biomass and Bioenergy92 (2016), 106–129.
19.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Agricultural Statistics at Glance 2011 Available at: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in (2011).
20.
DubeyA.K., ChandraP., PadheeD. and GangilS., Energy from cotton stalks and other crop residues, in: International Workshop on Utilization of Cotton By-produce for Value-added Products (CFC/ICAC 20), 2009 (November 2009).
21.
HaqueM., BiermacherJ.T., KeringM.K. and GuretzkyJ.A., Economics of alternative fertilizer supply systems for switchgrass produced in phosphorus-deficient soils for bioenergy feedstock, BioEnergy Research6(1) (2013), 351–357.
LjungA. and NordinA., Theoretical feasibility for ecological biomass ash recirculation: Chemical equilibrium behavior of nutrient elements and heavy metals during combustion, Environmental Science & Technology31(9) (1997), 2499–2503.
25.
PathakH., MohantyS., JainN. and BhatiaA., Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium budgets in Indian agriculture, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems86(3) (2010), 287–299.
26.
FaaijA., Modern biomass conversion technologies, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change11(2) (2006), 343–375.
27.
DhimanH.S. and DebD., Fuzzy-based decision-making in hybrid wind farms, in: Decision and Control in Hybrid Wind Farms, Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 59–76 (Sep. 2019). doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0275-0_4.
28.
PatelR., DebD., DeyR. and BalasV.E., Microbial fuel cell laboratory setup, in: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 99–108 (Apr. 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18068-3_9.
29.
MohagheghiV., MousaviS.M. and MojtahediM., Project portfolio selection problems: Two decades review from 1999 to 2019, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems (2019), 1–15.
30.
BalasV. and JainL., World knowledge for sensors and estimators by models and internal models, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems21(1, 2) (2010), 79–88.
31.
LiZ., HeT., CaoL., WuT., McCauleyP., BalasV.E. and ShiF., Multi-source information fusion model in rule-based gaussianshaped fuzzy control inference system incorporating gaussian density function, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems29(6) (2015), 2335–2344.
