This study explored the feasibility of decentralized gasification of oil palm biomass in Indonesia to relieve its over-dependence on fossil fuel-based power generation and facilitate the electrification of its rural areas. The techno-feasibility of the gasification of oil palm biomass was first evaluated by reviewing existing literature. Subsequently, two scenarios (V1 and V2, and M1 and M2) were proposed regarding the use cases of the village and mill, respectively. The capacity of the gasification systems in the V1 and M1 scenarios are determined by the total amount of oil palm biomass available in the village and mill, respectively. The capacity of the gasification systems in the V2 and M2 scenarios is determined by the respective electricity demand of the village and mill. The global warming impact and economic feasibility (net present value (NPV) and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)) of the proposed systems were compared with that of the current practices (diesel generator for the village use case and biomass boiler combustion for the mill use case) using life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Under the current daily demand per household (0.4 kWh), deploying the V2 system in 10⁴ villages with 500 households each could save up to 17.9 thousand tons of CO_2-eq per year compared to the current diesel-based practice. If the electricity could be fed into the national grid, the M1 system with 100% capacity factor could provide yearly GHG emissions mitigation of 5.8 × 10⁴ ton CO_2-eq, relative to the current boiler combustion-based reference scenario. M1 had a positive mean NPV if the electricity could be fed into the national grid, while M2 had a positive mean NPV at the biochar price of 500 USD/ton. Under the current electricity tariff (ET) (0.11 kWh) and the biochar price of 2650 USD/ton, daily household demands of 2 and 1.8 kWh were required to reach the break-even point of the mean NPV for the V2 system for the cases of 300 and 500 households, respectively. The average LCOE of V2 is approximately one-fourth that of the reference scenario, while the average LCOE of V1 is larger than that of the reference scenario. The average LCOE of M1 decreased to around 0.06 USD/kWh for the case of a 100% capacity factor. Sensitivity analysis showed that the capital cost of gasification system and its overall electrical efficiency had the most significant effects on the NPV. Finally, practical system deployment was discussed, with consideration of policy formulation and fiscal incentives.

这项研究探讨了印度尼西亚油棕生物质分散气化的可行性，以减轻其对化石燃料发电的过度依赖，并促进其农村地区的电气化。首先通过回顾现有文献来评估油棕生物质气化的技术可行性。随后，分别针对村庄和工厂的用例提出了两种方案（V1和V2，以及M1和M2）。V1和M1方案中气化系统的容量分别取决于村庄和工厂中可用的油棕生物量总量。在V2和M2方案中，气化系统的容量取决于村庄和工厂各自的电力需求。将拟议系统的全球变暖影响和经济可行性（净现值（NPV）和平均电力成本（LCOE））与当前做法（乡村用例的柴油发电机和工厂的生物质锅炉燃烧）进行了比较。用例），使用生命周期评估（LCA）和成本效益分析（CBA）。在当前的每户日需求量（0.4 kWh）下，在10个家庭中部署V2系统 与目前的基于柴油的做法相比，拥有500户家庭的⁴个村庄每年可节省多达1.79万吨二氧化碳_当量。如果将电力输送到国家电网，容量系数为100％的M1系统每年可减少5.8×10 ⁴ 吨CO _2当量的温室气体排放。，相对于当前基于锅炉燃烧的参考方案。如果将电力输送到国家电网，M1的平均NPV为正，而当生物炭价格为500美元/吨时，M2的平均NPV为正。在当前电价（ET）（0.11 kWh）和生物炭价格为2650美元/吨的情况下，要达到V2系统的平均NPV收支平衡点，每天的家庭需求为2和1.8 kWh分别为300户和500户。V2的平均LCOE约为参考方案的四分之一，而V1的平均LCOE大于参考方案的平均LCOE。在容量系数为100％的情况下，M1的平均LCOE降至约0.06美元/千瓦时。敏感性分析表明，气化系统的资本成本及其整体电效率对NPV的影响最大。最后，讨论了实际的系统部署，同时考虑了政策制定和财政激励措施。