Exergy, Emission, and Operational Cost Analysis of Cofiring Coal-Fired Power Plant Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v5i12.51938Keywords:
Coal-fired power plants, exergy, exergoeconomic, CO₂ emissions, operating costs, biomass cofiring, cycle-tempo, energy transitionAbstract
Indonesia's electricity sector remains heavily dependent on coal-fired steam power plants (PLTU), which account for more than 50% of the national energy mix. This study aims to evaluate the impact of biomass cofiring implementation on the thermodynamic, environmental, and economic performance of PLTU Banten 2 Labuan Unit 1, which has a capacity of 300 MW. The methodology involves thermodynamic simulation using Cycle-Tempo software to calculate energy efficiency and exergy, as well as the cost of exergy destruction as part of an exergoeconomic analysis. The results show that the cofiring scenario of 95% coal and 5% biomass is the most optimal configuration. This scenario yields an exergy efficiency of 37.55%, with a reduction in exergy destruction of 7,119 kW compared to 100% coal. Economically, it provides fuel cost savings of 3.2% and a reduction in the cost of exergy destruction of Rp1,623,600 per hour. Environmentally, it reduces CO₂ emissions by 6.25 tons per hour, demonstrating a tangible contribution to emissions reduction in the energy sector. This study concludes that biomass cofiring technology, especially at a 95:5 ratio, offers a viable energy transition solution that can be gradually adopted by existing coal-fired power plants in Indonesia. The results are expected to serve as a technical and strategic reference for developing low-carbon energy policies and optimizing the operation of biomass-cofiring-based power plants.
References
Agoes Noor Sidiq. (2022). The Effect of Biomass Co-Firing on the Boiler Efficiency of Coal Power Plants. Kilat, 11(1).
Almogbel, A., Alkasmoul, F., Aldawsari, Z., Alsulami, J., & Alsuwailem, A. (2020). Comparison of energy consumption between non-inverter and inverter-type air conditioner in Saudi Arabia. Energy Transitions, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41825-020-00033-y
Brueckner, M., & Lederman, D. (2018). Inequality and economic growth: the role of initial income. Journal of Economic Growth, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-018-9156-4
Campbell, G. (2017). Progress on GHG emissions reduction in Canada’s electricity sector. Power, 161(3).
Dincer, I., & Rosen, M. A. (2021). Exergy analysis of heating, refrigerating and air conditioning (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
Ertit Tastan, B. (2016). Biomass Optimisation of Thermal Power Plant Coal Emissions Resistant Leptolyngbya sp. and CO2 Fixation in Coal Emissions. Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Journal Of Natural Sciences, 19(4).
Finkelman, R. B., Wolfe, A., & Hendryx, M. S. (2021). The future environmental and health impacts of coal. Energy Geoscience, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.11.001
G S, G., C, D., & Saravanan, Prof. Dr. V. (2023). Estimation and Analysis of CO2 emission in Thermal power plants. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.50666
Inoue, A. D., Kumagai, A. T., & Fukushima, A. H. (2015). Biomass-coal co-firing power plant system with a high biomass ratio. ICOPE 2015 - International Conference on Power Engineering.
Ip, V. (2024). D25 Green-gional anaesthesia: aligning the triple bottom line. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-esra.567
Kawalec, W., Suchorab, N., Konieczna-Fuławka, M., & Król, R. (2020). Specific energy consumption of a belt conveyor system in a continuous surface mine. Energies, 13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195214
Kazulis, V., Vigants, H., Veidenbergs, I., & Blumberga, D. (2018). Biomass and natural gas co-firing - Evaluation of GHG emissions. Energy Procedia, 147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.071
Kotas, T. J. (2013). The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Butterworth-Heinemann.
L.G.Popescu, C.Popescu, Runceanu, A., & L.Anghelescu. (2016). The Reducing Of Co2 Emissions Of Thermal Power Plant Through Using Energy Mix Biomass-Coal. 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2016, Book 4, 1(SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7105-63-6 / ISSN 1314-2704).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019). 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC.
Pasek, A. D., Soleh, M., Juangsa, F. B., & Darmanto, P. S. (2024). Progress on Biomass Coal Co-firing for Indonesia Power Plant. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1395(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1395/1/012009
Shoaei, M., Ahmadi, M. H., Kumar, R., & Rosen, M. A. (2021). 4E analysis and optimization of integrated renewable systems. Renewable Energy, 164, 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.123
Surya, B., Menne, F., Sabhan, H., Suriani, S., Abubakar, H., & Idris, M. (2021). Economic Growth, Increasing Productivity of SMEs, and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010020
Vig, N., Ravindra, K., & Mor, S. (2023). Environmental impacts of Indian coal thermal power plants and associated human health risk to the nearby residential communities: A potential review. In Chemosphere (Vol. 341). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140103
Zhang, X., Li, H., Wang, J., & Yang, Y. (2019). Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of CCHP systems with biomass co-firing. Energy Conversion and Management, 198, 111890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111890
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Patouillard, L., Margni, M., Bulle, C., & Yuan, Z. (2025). Where coal is produced really matters the environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107987
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Arya Adi Saputra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
