Rice Straw To Energy - Imp.

Feasibility of Rice Straw Utilization for

Small Scale Power Production

Dan Hoer
Brock Phillips
Angela Wang
Ruby Woodside

Acknowledgements
This study was conducted at the Joint Graduate School of Energy and the Environment (JGSEE), King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT).
Advisors:
Savitri Garivait (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)
Rich Kamens (UNC-‐CH)
Special Thanks to:
Penwadee Cheewaphongphan (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)
Ubonwan Chaiyo (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)
Kanittha Kanokkanjana (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)
2

Table of Contents
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 6
Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 8
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 8
1.Introduction to Rice Agriculture ........................................................................................ 11
1.1.Rice Agriculture in Thailand ............................................................................................. 13
1.1.1.Different Regions in Thailand ................................................................................... 14
1.1.1.1.Northeast Thailand ................................................................................................ 14
1.1.1.2.Central Thailand .................................................................................................... 15
1.1.1.3.Northern Thailand ................................................................................................. 15
1.1.1.4.Southern Thailand ................................................................................................. 15
1.1.2Increasing Rice Production in Thailand ...................................................................... 15
1.1.2.1.Irrigation ............................................................................................................... 16
1.1.2.2.Use of Fertilizers ................................................................................................... 17
1.1.2.3.Other .................................................................................................................... 17
1.2.Rice Cultivation ............................................................................................................... 18
1.2.1.Classification of Cultivation Methods ....................................................................... 18
1.2.2.General Cultivation Practices .................................................................................... 19
1.2.2.1.Pregermination ..................................................................................................... 19
1.2.2.2.Stand Establishment .............................................................................................. 19
1.2.2.2.1.Transplanting ............................................................................................... 19
1.2.2.2.2.Seedling Raising ............................................................................................ 19
1.2.2.2.3.Seedling Handling ......................................................................................... 20
1.2.2.3.Planting ................................................................................................................. 20
1.2.2.4.Direct-‐Seeded (Puddled) ........................................................................................ 21
1.2.2.5.Direct-‐Seeded (Dry) ............................................................................................... 21
1.2.2.6.Broadcast in Water ................................................................................................ 21
1.2.2.7.Crop Maintenance ................................................................................................. 22
1.2.2.8.Harvesting ............................................................................................................. 22
1.2.3.Growing Environments ............................................................................................. 22
1.2.3.1.Upland .................................................................................................................. 23
1.2.3.2.Irrigated Lowland .................................................................................................. 23
1.2.3.3.Rainfed Lowland .................................................................................................... 24
1.2.3.4.Deepwater ............................................................................................................ 24
1.2.3.5.Floating ................................................................................................................. 25
1.3.International Data ........................................................................................................... 25
1.3.1.Asia .......................................................................................................................... 25
1.3.1.1Thailand ................................................................................................................. 25
1.4.By-‐products and Residues from Rice Cultivation .............................................................. 26
2.Straw Availability in Thailand ............................................................................................. 27
2.1.Pollution Control Department Data ................................................................................. 27
2.1.1.Thailand Residue Burn Data ..................................................................................... 30
2.2.Rice Straw Availability in Thailand ................................................................................... 34
2.2.1.Area ......................................................................................................................... 34
2.2.2.Straw to Grain Ratio (SGR) and Harvest Index (HI) .................................................... 34
2.2.3.Methodology ............................................................................................................ 35
2.2.3.1.Rice Production Statistics ...................................................................................... 35
2.2.3.2.Varietals ................................................................................................................ 35
2.2.3.3.SGR Differences ..................................................................................................... 36
2.2.3.4.Regional Differences .............................................................................................. 37
3

2.2.3.5.PCD Data ............................................................................................................... 38
2.2.3.6.Rice Straw Availability ........................................................................................... 39
2.2.4.Results ..................................................................................................................... 40
2.2.4.1.Rice Straw Produced .............................................................................................. 40
2.2.4.1.1.Total ............................................................................................................. 40
2.2.4.1.2.Major and Second Rice ................................................................................. 42
2.2.4.2.Rice Straw Burned. ................................................................................................ 43
2.2.4.2.1.Total ............................................................................................................. 43
2.2.4.2.2.Major and Second Rice ................................................................................. 44
3.Rice Straw Utilization ......................................................................................................... 45
3.1.Current Management Practices ....................................................................................... 45
3.1.1.Burning .................................................................................................................... 45
3.2.Utilization ....................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.1.Offsite ...................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.2.Onsite ...................................................................................................................... 47
3.3.Rice Straw Utilization in Thailand .................................................................................... 47
4.Assessment of Technologies for Heat and Power Production ............................................. 48
4.1.Combustion .................................................................................................................... 48
4.1.1.Stages of Biomass Combustion ................................................................................. 49
4.1.2.Key Issues ................................................................................................................. 49
4.1.2.1.Moisture Content of Fuel ....................................................................................... 49
4.1.2.2.NOx Emissions ....................................................................................................... 50
4.1.2.3Ash Problems ......................................................................................................... 50
4.1.3.Power Generation .................................................................................................... 51
4.1.4.Rice Straw as a Fuel Source ...................................................................................... 51
4.1.5.Technologies ............................................................................................................ 52
4.1.5.1.Pile Burner ............................................................................................................ 52
4.1.5.2.Stoker Fired Boiler ................................................................................................. 52
4.1.5.2.1.Sloping Grate ................................................................................................ 53
4.1.5.2.2.Travelling Grate ............................................................................................ 53
4.1.5.2.3.Vibrating Grate ............................................................................................. 53
4.1.5.3.Suspension Fired Boiler ......................................................................................... 53
4.1.5.4Fluidized Bed Boiler ................................................................................................ 54
4.1.5.4.1.Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) ........................................................................ 55
4.1.5.4.2.Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) ..................................................................... 55
4.1.6.Suggestions .............................................................................................................. 55
4.2.Gasification ..................................................................................................................... 56
4.3.Pyrolysis .......................................................................................................................... 57
4.3.1.Fast (flash) pyrolysis ................................................................................................ 57
4.3.2.Slow (vacuum) pyrolysis ........................................................................................... 58
4.3.3.Pyrolytic Bio-‐oils ....................................................................................................... 58
4.3.3.1.Kinematic Viscosity ................................................................................................ 58
4.3.3.2.Density .................................................................................................................. 58
4.3.3.3.Ash Content ........................................................................................................... 58
4.3.3.4.pH Level ................................................................................................................ 59
4.3.3.5.Flash Point ............................................................................................................. 59
4.3.3.6.Pour Point ............................................................................................................. 59
4.3.3.7.Gross Calorific Value .............................................................................................. 59
4.3.4.Costs ........................................................................................................................ 59
4.4.Biomethanation .............................................................................................................. 60
4.4.1.Requirements for the Technology ............................................................................. 61
4

4.4.2.Material Properties .................................................................................................. 62
4.4.3.Current Experience ................................................................................................... 62
4.4.4.Applicability to Thailand ........................................................................................... 63
4.4.5.Recommendations ................................................................................................... 63
4.5.Hydrolysis ....................................................................................................................... 64
4.6.Summary of Technologies ............................................................................................... 65
5.Chemical Analysis of Rice Straw ......................................................................................... 65
5.1.Background ..................................................................................................................... 65
5.2.Methodology .................................................................................................................. 69
5.3.Ultimate Analysis ............................................................................................................ 70
5.4.Proximate Analysis .......................................................................................................... 72
5.5.Calorific Values ............................................................................................................... 76
6.Feasibility of Utilizing Rice Straw for Power Production ..................................................... 78
6.1.Collection Processes ........................................................................................................ 78
6.2.Harvest Processes ........................................................................................................... 78
6.3.Processing Activities: Raking and Swathing ..................................................................... 79
6.4.Processing Activities: Densification and Road-‐Siding ....................................................... 80
6.5.Transportation ................................................................................................................ 82
6.6.Storage Considerations ................................................................................................... 83
6.7.Energetic Feasibility Analysis ........................................................................................... 84
6.7.1.Energetic Feasibility Analysis Results ........................................................................ 85
6.8.Economic Feasibility Analysis .......................................................................................... 86
6.8.1.Economic Feasibility Analysis Results ....................................................................... 86
6.9.Economic Assessment Based on End User ....................................................................... 87
6.10.Economics of On-‐Site Utilization .................................................................................... 89
6.11.Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 90
7. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 90
8.Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 93
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................... 103
Appendix D ......................................................................................................................... 108
Appendix E .......................................................................................................................... 112
Appendix F .......................................................................................................................... 117
Appendex G ........................................................................................................................ 119
Works Cited ........................................................................................................................ 121
5

Abbreviations
BC-‐Black Carbon
BFB-‐Bubbling Fluidized Bed
C-‐Carbon
Cd-‐Cadmium
CFB-‐Circulating Fluidized Bed
CH4-‐Methane
CO-‐Carbon Monoxide
CO2-‐Carbon Dioxide
Cr-‐Chromium
FAO-‐Food and Agriculture Organization
GSR-‐Grain to Straw Ratio
H-‐Hydrogen
HHV-‐Higher Heating Value
HI-‐Harvest Index
IRRI-‐International Rice Research Institute
K-‐Potassium
LHV-‐Lower Heating Value
N-‐Nitrogen
NH3-‐Ammonia
Ni-‐Nickel
N2O-‐Nitrous Oxide
NOx-‐Nitrogen Oxides
O-‐Oxygen
OC-‐Organic Compounds
P-‐Phosphorous
PCD-‐Pollution Control Department
Pb-‐Lead
S-‐Sulfur
SCG-‐Siam Cement Group
Se-‐Selenium
6

SGR-‐Straw to Grain Ratio
SO2-‐Sulfur Dioxide
SOx-‐Sulfur Oxides
USD-‐U.S. Dollar
THB-‐Thai Baht
V-‐Vanadium
VOC-‐Volatile Organic Compounds
Zn-‐Zinc
7

Abstract
As the total yearly production of rice in Thailand increases, Thais must find ways to manage
the increasing amounts of rice straw produced as a byproduct. One of the current methods of
management is open burning, and in 2006 approximately 4.32 Mt of rice straw was burned in
Thailand. However, in recent years Thais have begun to search for alternative methods of rice straw
management, including utilization of the biomass to produce energy. This study focuses on the
feasibility of using rice straw for such purposes. It was found that rice straw has an average calorific
value of 3,308.29 cal/g. However, due to physical and chemical properties of rice straw, the
biomass is not suited for most large scale conversion technologies. The most feasible option for
energy conversion is co-‐firing combustion with coal. Analysis show that while off site utilization of
rice straw is energetically feasible, the main barriers are currently economics related.
Executive Summary
In order to provide the overall rice straw use feasibility analysis presented in this paper, an
extensive literature review regarding practices of rice cultivation and harvest in Thailand, rice straw
utilization schemes, and possible applicable technologies was conducted. The goal of this project
was to compile useful information into a single location, and to draw from existing data the most
viable plan of action for the future. To supplement the literature review, site visits were conducted
both to rice plantations where straw samples were taken and farmers interviewed, as well as to a
major Thai cement company representing a possible end user of rice straw. The data gathered from
the farmer interviews was used in combination with data from the Pollution Control Department
(PCD) to analyze current patterns of rice cultivation and straw management in Thailand. The
samples of rice straw were analyzed for composition and compared to data found in the literature.
Finally, using data from the field visits as well as data found in the literature, energetic and economic
feasibility analyses were preformed regarding the use of rice straw for energy purposes. Some of
the key findings are outlined below.
To determine the amount of rice straw available for energy utilization in Thailand, the total
amounts of rice straw produced were determined for each province. This was done using straw to
grain ratio (SGR) values found in the literature and recorded values of each province’s rice
production. The amount of this rice straw available for energy purposes was assumed to be the
amount otherwise burned by farmers. The fraction of rice straw burned in each province was taken
8

from the PCD data. The following graph shows the yearly regional results for the total rice straw
burned:
Figure 2.13. Total rice straw burned, in tons, by region in Thailand.
Based on the technology review, the most promising methods of energy conversion utilizing
rice straw are combustion, particularly co-‐firing, and biomethanation. For the large scale production
of heat and energy, combustion of rice straw using a fluidized bed boiler is the most feasible. To
overcome the difficulties of maintaining a large continuous source of rice straw, as well as
minimizing some of the problematic qualities of straw as a primary fuel source, co-‐firing with coal is
ideal. This can be done in existing fluidized bed boilers with minimal adjustments. Biomethanation
would be most applicable for small scale, on site usage as a provider of fuel for cooking or lighting
purposes. This technology lends itself well to many regions of Thailand, particularly the Northeast,
where the farms are decentralized and there is a lack of suitable highways, making transporting rice
straw to a centralized location difficult.
The energetic feasibility analysis of rice straw utilization determined that energy can be
recovered at all transportation distances between 5 and 1500 kilometers with recovery efficiencies
varied from 5 to 100 percent of the higher heating value of rice straw (HHV). However, the
economic feasibility analysis showed that rice straw collection and utilization is not beneficial at
significant distances, depending on parameters such as the market price of rice straw and
government subsidies. In many situations, the utilization of rice straw is not feasible at any
transportation distance. While these two analyses make many assumptions which may not be
accurate for Thailand and are very sensitive to market fluctuations, they do show that the primary
obstacle in rice straw utilization is economics related.
9

Based on these analyses and the data compiled from the literature and field visits,
recommendations were made for future research and action to be taken regarding the use of rice
straw for energy purposes. It was found that on a large, country wide scale, rice straw for power
production is simply not feasible. In some provinces where larger farms are situated in close
proximity to one another and the rice straw is thus more centralized, it may be feasible to collect
and transport rice straw to a common site for energy production. However, the collection method
and transportation scheme need to be analyzed carefully depending on the specific situation. It is
not viable at all to have collection schemes in regions where the rice straw is decentralized and
located at smaller farms. In these cases further research into on site utilization schemes other than
burning is recommended. Biomethanation has strong potential for these cases. Finally, it is also
recommended that more spatially resolute data regarding the rice cultivation in Thailand be
collected. In this way it could be seen exactly where rice straw is located, and thus exactly which
regions have the potential for collection schemes.
10

1. Introduction to Rice Agriculture
This report will focus on rice straw and its current disposal as well as possible energy
utilizations, specifically in Thailand. Currently, the main method for removal of rice straw is through
burning because it is the most convenient and least labor intensive way. Also, there are no existing
incentives for the farmers not to burn. The different technologies available to convert rice straw into
an energy source are still relatively new and still under development, but they have the potential to
benefit farmers on a local scale by allowing them to harness the energy in rice straw towards other
activities. This study will first look at rice agriculture in Thailand and investigate the availability of
rice straw in Thailand based on government data on rice production and literature values for straw
to grain ratios. Next, current management practices, energy potential of collected sample rice straw
from laboratory experiments, and potential technologies that use rice straw for heat and power
production are considered. Lastly, the energetic and economic feasibility of utilizing rice straw for
power production is examined considering collection, transport, and storage of rice straw.
In order to examine the availability of rice straw, it is important to first get some background
about rice production worldwide and Thailand. In 2007, the world produced about 645 million
tonnes of rice. Not surprisingly, Asia is the leader in rice production, generating about 575 million
tonnes of rice in 2007, as can be seen below. (IRRI 2007).
Figure 1.1. Rough rice production worldwide, 1961-‐2007. (IRRI 2007).
11

The harvested area of rice has followed a similar upward trend but with less of a steep
increase, while the yield of rough rice has improved drastically in the recent decades.
Figure 1.2. Harvested area of rough rice worldwide, 1961-‐2007. (IRRI 2007).
Figure 1.3. Rough rice yield worldwide, 1961-‐2007. (IRRI 2007).
The rapid growth of rice production and yield without a significant expansion in harvested area is
due to different management techniques, new technology (e.g. combine harvesters), fertilizers,
higher yielding varieties of rice, and more. To complement background information about rice
agriculture in Thailand, the top five rice producing nations-‐ China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and
Vietnam-‐ are examined as well.
12

Production Export Yield
Rice area (ha)
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonne/ha)
World 636,493,000 29,066,000 154,436,000 4.12
China 186,454,000 1,000,000 29,865,000 6.24
India 143,534,000 2,800,000 44,000,000 3.26
Indonesia 55,039,000 -‐ 11,900,000 4.63
Bangladesh 42,904,000 -‐ 11,100,000 3.87
Vietnam 35,671,000 4,750,000 7,342,000 4.86
Thailand 28,030,000 10,000,000 10,430,000 2.69
Table 1.1. 2007 World Rice Statistics (IRRI 2007).
The largest producer of rice is China, producing 186,454,000 tonnes of rice in 2007.
However, the largest exporter of rice is Thailand, exporting nearly a third of their production and
total world exports. Indonesia and Bangladesh have subsistence-‐based rice agricultures and
therefore, do not contribute to the world export of rice. India, second largest in production, has the
most area devoted to rice cultivation. The average yield of 6.24 t/ha in China is well above the world
average yield of 4.12 t/ha while Thailand has the lowest yield of only 2.69 t/ha. (IRRI 2007).
1.1. Rice Agriculture in Thailand
In order to determine the availability of rice straw in Thailand, one must first understand rice
agriculture and its trends over recent years. Rice is the staple food for all of Thailand and the main
agricultural product in Thailand. Also, Thailand has become the top exporter of rice in recent years.
About 40% of land in Thailand is devoted to agriculture, of which about 50% is used for rice
cultivation. (OAE 2001).
Figure 1.4. Land use in Thailand. (OAE 2001).
13

1.1.1. Different Regions in Thailand
There are four regions Thailand can be divided into-‐ the northeast, central, north, and south. These
regions are distinct in their environments and characteristics pertaining to rice productivity.
Figure1.5. Regions of Thailand and land use. (OAE 2001).
1.1.1.1. Northeast Thailand
The northeast holds more than half of the rice land in Thailand although the average size of its farms
is smaller than other regions. Problems in this area include soil erosion and drought during the dry
season, so less than 10% of the land here is planted with rice during the dry season. Also, the
northeast has poor water-‐holding capacity soils which further worsens soil conditions since less than
20% of total irrigated land in Thailand is in this region.

14

1.1.1.2. Central Thailand
About 20% of total cultivated rice land is in the central region of Thailand. The central area has large
average farm sizes and farmers have more access to irrigation resources so about 75% of dry season
rice is grown using irrigation. Also, production is high due to the mechanization of almost all
operations and the use of less labor intensive practices like direct seeding.
1.1.1.3. Northern Thailand
The northern region of Thailand accounts for about one-‐third of the land area in Thailand and also
has opposite kinds of topography. Therefore, there are two kinds of rice grown here-‐ upland rice,
grown in high hills and in upland areas, and lowland rice, grown in valleys and terraced paddies. This
region contains about 20% of total rice land in Thailand.
1.1.1.4. Southern Thailand
The southern region of Thailand only comprises about 14% of the total land area in Thailand. Not
surprisingly, this region accounts for just 6% of the total rice land in Thailand. Also, rice productivity
is low since there are limited rice fields and the soil in this region is acidic. (IRRI 2007).
1.1.2. Increasing Rice Production in Thailand
Thailand has become the major exporter; in 2007, Thailand produced about 28 million tonnes of rice
and exported almost 10 million tonnes of rice. (IRRI 2007).
Figure 1.6. Rice production in Thailand, 1994-‐2003. (OAE 2003).
15

This may seem strange since Thailand is not in the top three rice-‐producing countries but there are
several explanations for this-‐ increasing access to irrigation systems, use of fertilizers and pesticides,
mechanization of labor, and weather. These reasons are also responsible for explaining why
harvested area has remained fairly constant while yield has increased, shown in the next two figures.

Figure 1.7. Harvested area in Thailand, 1994-‐2003. (OAE 2003).
Figure 1.8. Rice yield in Thailand, 1994-‐2003. (OAE 2003).
1.1.2.1. Irrigation
The irrigated areas in Thailand have been slowly but steadily increasing. The biggest increase in
irrigated areas is in the North, increasing on average about 180,000 rai a year, while the other
regions are increasing at about 88,000 rai a year.
16

Figure 1.9. Irrigated area in Thailand, 1003-‐2003. (OAE 2003)
1.1.2.2. Use of Fertilizers
The use of fertilizers has also increased progressively in the last couple decades, which is also a
major reason production and yield have increased.
Figure 1.10. Fertilizer consumption in Thailand, 1961-‐2002. (IRRI 2002)
1.1.2.3. Other
Manual labor is being replaced by machines that can do the same amount of work in less time and
can help the farmer save money on labor costs. Also, higher yielding varieties of rice are now being
used, which has improved yield and production of rice.
17

1.2. Rice Cultivation
As a crop, rice is incredibly versatile given its ability to be grown in latitudes ranging from 30° S to
50° N, altitudes from sea level to 2500m, soils with a pH of 3 to 10, and varying amounts of organic
matter and salinity. Cultivated for centuries, the numbers of rice varietals and potential growing
environments have grown in such a way that there are numerous means of classifying rice
cultivation. The simplest means of classification is as either lowland (wetland) or upland (dryland),
with rice originally being a lowland crop. Lowland rice is less dependent upon the physical
properties of the soil due to the presence of large amounts of water used during the growing
season. Instead soil fertility and the chemical nature of the soil are key. Most Asian rice is cultivated
in a lowland setting, while rice cultivated in Latin America and Africa is done so in an upland
environment. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.1. Classification of Cultivation Methods
The four primary classification systems for rice cultivation are based upon one of the following: the
water source, the land and water management system, the watering regime, or the varietal type. In
terms of water source, rice can be either rainfed or irrigated, with rainfed crops being more
common, but higher yields obtained with irrigated crops. Based upon the land and water
management system, crops are either lowland (wetland) or upland (dryland) preparation. The
watering regime classification system is based upon the amount of standing water present in the
fields during the majority of the growing season. Upland rice cultivation involves no standing water,
lowland rice cultivation involves standing water from a depth of 5 cm to 50 cm, and deepwater rice
cultivation involves standing water from a depth of 50 cm to 600 cm. The fourth major classification
system is based upon the varietal type, with lowland rice crops being semidwarf to medium to tall in
height (100 cm to 200 cm), upland rice crops being medium to tall in height (130 cm to 150 cm),
deepwater rice crops being medium to tall in height (120 cm to 150 cm without standing water and
200 cm to 300 cm with rising water levels), and floating rice crops being tall in height (larger than
150 cm without standing water and up to 500 cm or 600 cm with rising water levels).
Classification of rice by a single system is rare since each classification by itself is insufficient in fully
describing a particular rice crop. For example, lowland and deepwater crops can be further
categorized depending upon the stand establishment of the crop or the method by which the land is
prepared. Ideally, a rice crop would be classified by each of these four systems to provide the best
description of the crop being cultivated. More holistic, and therefore specific, systems of classifying
rice crops have been developed, including one by Barker and Herdt in 1979. This system is specific
18

to South and Southeast Asia and categorizes rice crops into one of four categories: irrigated, shallow
rainfed, deepwater, and upland.
1.2.2. General Cultivation Practices

1.2.2.1. Pregermination
Pregermination is a process used to prepare seeds prior to planting in order to ensure that the crop
experiences a rapid, even start, both of which are keys to a successful crop. A standard
pregermination process involves soaking the rice seeds in water for 24 hours and then incubating
them for 48 hours. Following this three day period, the seeds are ready for planting. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.2. Stand Establishment
There are four main methods of stand establishment: transplanting, direct-‐seeding in puddled soil,
direct-‐seeding in dry soil, and broadcast seeding in water. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.2.1. Transplanting
In the transplanting method of stand establishment, seedlings are raised in smaller beds in one of
three ways and then removed and transferred to the main rice field. The amount of time required
to raise the seedlings varies based upon the method, which is described in the section discussing the
handling of seedlings. Given improvements technology, transplanting can be done both manually
and mechanically. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.2.2. Seedling Raising
The raising of seedlings is necessary only when transplanting is the method of stand establishment
employed. There are three major methods of raising seedlings: wet-‐bed, dry-‐bed, and dapog. The
selection of which one is to be used is dependent upon the availability of water, yet each produce
similar yield rates in the resultant rice crop if all other factors are constant. The wet-‐bed method of
raising seedlings requires the broadcast of pregerminated seeds on raised, puddled soil at a rate of
50 kg/ha. Dry-‐bed seedling raising is similar to the wet-‐bed method in terms of seed distribution
method and seeding rate, however requires the soil to be slightly moist, not puddle. This method is
more suitable for areas where there is little water for irrigating the seedbeds.
The dapog method of raising seedlings was developed in the Philippines and is less common than
the previous two methods. Pregerminated seeds are broadcast over smaller sections of moist
banana leafs or plastic sheets at a rate of 100 kg/ha. Despite the requirement of more seedbed
preparation, this method is advantageous given the shorter period required to grow the seedlings,
19

the overall decrease in labor costs, and the ease of transporting the seedlings on the leaves or sheets
once they are ready to be transplanted. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.2.3. Seedling Handling
The handling of seedlings requires great care given the need for a quick revival and rapid early
growth of the seedlings following transplanting. Prior to transplanting the seedbeds are flooded
allowing for easier removal of the seedlings. In the dapog method, the banana leaves or plastic
sheets are simply cut into sections and then used to transport the seedlings. Given the fact that it is
harder for older seedlings to recover from the transplanting process it is important to transfer the
seedlings at an optimal time. For wet-‐bed and dry-‐bed methods seedlings are commonly
transplanting after 40 to 50 days of growth, although 20 to 30 days is optimal for wet-‐bed raised
seedlings. The dapog method fosters faster seedling growth, allowing for them to be transplanted
after 9 to 14 days of growth. In terms of varietals, earlier maturing rice should be transplanted
sooner and traditional varieties are typically more resilient during the transplanting process than
modern varieties. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.3. Planting
Two factors important to the actual planting process are the number of seedlings planted per hill
and the spacing of the hills within the rice field. The number of seedlings per hill is dependent upon
both the method of raising the seedlings and the tillering capacity of the varietal being grown.
Seedlings raised using the wet-‐bed or dry-‐bed method can be planted at a density of 3 to 4 seedlings
per hill, while a density of 6 to 8 seedling per hill is required for seedlings raised using the dapog
method. Varietals with higher tillering capacities require fewer seedlings per hill, thus reducing
labor and costs. For example, Chinese varietals that have lower tillering capacities need almost 10
seedlings per hill to achieve desired yields.
The amount of space between adjacent hills varies based upon the varietal used, the seasonal
conditions, and the fertility of the soil. Spacing becomes increasingly important as the extremes are
reached. Hills that are planted too close to one another increase both the cost of transplanting and
the chance of lodging. A spacing that places hills too far from one another leads to fewer plants
being planted overall and therefore diminished yields.
A common practice in South and Southeast Asia is to randomly space the hills. Despite the
widespread use of this method, especially in rainfed rice cultivation, it makes the process of weeding
more difficult and also complicates efforts to optimize the population of plants within the field. (De
Datta 1981)
20

1.2.2.4. Direct-‐Seeded (Puddled)
Direct-‐seeding on puddled soil, also known as wet-‐seeded, involves the broadcasting or machine
drilling of pregerminated seeds onto puddled soil. Given the greater potential for poor stand
establishment that results from this method, more exact water management, better weed control,
and optimal fertilizer management are essential. Additionally, the threat of lodging is more serious
with this method of stand establishment. Varietals with a high tillering capacity, good seedling vigor,
and early maturation are preferred for this method. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.5. Direct-‐Seeded (Dry)
The method of direct-‐seeding on dry soil is the same as the method of direct-‐seeding on puddled soil
with the other difference being the moisture content of the soil. In the case of rainfed rice crops,
the execution of this method is entirely dependent upon the pattern of local rainfall. Ideally, the
crop will be planted just prior to the onset of seasonal rains, with enough rain falling after planting
so that there is good seedling emergence and quick vegetative growth. These two factors influence
the crops ability to withstand the two extremes of large amounts of rainfall and periods of intense
drought. Should the planting take place after the onset of seasonal rains, there is poor seedling
emergence which results in lower yields. Much like with direct-‐seeding in puddled soils, early
maturing varietals are preferred as well as varietals with good drought tolerance.
A primary benefit of direct-‐seeding on dry soil, particularly with rainfed crops, is the potential for
doubling cropping. The planting of a secondary crop is characterized by turnaround time, which is
the interval between harvesting of the first crop and planting of the second crop. This period varies
from 5 to 37 days, averaging 21 days, and is dependent upon the planting method of the second
crop. If the second crop is wet-‐seeded compared to transplanted, the turnaround time can be
reduced by almost 10 days. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.2.6. Broadcast in Water
A final method of stand establishment is that of broadcast seeding in water. This method simply
requires the broadcasting of seeds on a field flooded to some extent with water. Drawbacks to this
method include the use of a greater amount of seeds to achieve similar yields and more precise
water management. Preferred varietals include those with good seed viability and high resistance to
lodging. (De Datta 1981)
21

1.2.2.7. Crop Maintenance
Maintenance of rice crops various as much as the cultivation environments and seeding practices.
As with any crop, the key forms of maintenance include supplying water, supplying nutrients,
controlling weeds, and controlling pests. The first of these depends upon the water source and the
cultivation environment. Application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides have become more
common to achieve the remaining three goals, yet simple solutions such as flooding to prevent
weeds and introduction of fish or ducks to reduce pests have proven to be just as effective.
(Greenland 1997)
1.2.2.8. Harvesting
The time for harvesting the rice depends upon the percentage of ripened grains in panicles, with
approximately 80% of the grains having a straw color. Also at this stage, the lower part of the
panicle having a hard dough-‐like feel. At the time of harvest, the moisture content of the rice is
typically greater than 20%. Harvesting of dry season rice occurs earlier than for wet season rice
given the greater amount of solar radiation and higher temperatures achieved during the growing
season.
Harvesting can be either manual or mechanical, both of which are concerned with cutting the plant
in such a way as to minimize the amount of straw being processed while harvesting the maximum
amount of grain. Mechanical harvesting using combines cuts the straw just below the head at a
height to minimize the amount of unharvested grain and the excessive shattering of harvested grain.
The logistics of rice harvesting and its implications will be discussed further in subsequent sections.
(De Datta 1981)
1.2.3. Growing Environments
Ultimately, five general methods of rice cultivation emerge from the various classification systems,
which include upland, irrigated lowland, rainfed lowland, deepwater, and floating. These methods
vary based not only upon water level and source, but stand establishment method, seedling raising,
problems encountered an more. A general illustration of these different methods is provided in the
following diagram. (De Datta 1981)
22

Figure 1.11. Barker and Herdt rice cultivation classification system.
1.2.3.1. Upland
Upland rice cultivation is unique in that the rice crop is planted on level or sloping fields with no
bunds to contain water. The fields are prepared under dry conditions and the crop is entirely
dependent upon rainfall for moisture. This method is primarily used by subsistence farmers in
poorer regions and due to the growing environment there is little mechanization in the cultivation
process. Upland rice crops tend to have stable, lower yields.
In addition to the problems that face lowland cultivated rice crops, upland crops face greater weed
competition, susceptibility to changes in the amount and availability of rainfall, incidence of blast,
and changes in soil nutrients. This latter problem results from the varying moisture availability
within aerobic soils. The amount and form of various nutrients necessary for successful plant
growth, such as potassium and iron, depend directly upon the moisture supply within the soil. Most
traditional upland rice varietals are intermediate to tall in height, exhibit good drought tolerance,
mature earlier, develop deeper roots, and have lower tillering rates. Problems associated with the
rice crop include weaker straw and greater susceptibility to lodging. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.3.2. Irrigated Lowland
Irrigated lowland rice cultivation is a method by which a water level of 5 cm to 50 cm is maintained
on the rice field by bunds for the majority of the growth period and for which the primary water
source is irrigation. The most commonly used method of stand establishment is transplanting,
however the other three methods discussed previously are also utilized in certain circumstances.
23

The success of irrigated lowland rice cultivation relies upon timely preparation of the land, careful
raising and handling of seedlings, and efficient transplanting. Compared to rainfed lowland rice
cultivation, this method involves more efficient weed control and pesticide and fertilizer application,
leading to higher yields.
The lowland environment for rice cultivation is the original growing environment for rice and
therefore problems encountered by and traits exhibited by varietals in this environment are the
standard by which all others are measured. Lowland encompasses a wide variety of growing
conditions and therefore a large number of varietals are grown, with the method of stand
establishment and water level dictating the optimal varietal. (De Datta 1981)
1.2.3.3. Rainfed Lowland
The method of rice cultivation classified as rainfed lowland is the same as irrigated lowland except
that the water source is local rainfall. Dikes are a necessity within this growing environment as there
is not always a dependable water supply. The onset of seasonal rains determines when cultivation
can begin since the fields can only be plowed once enough water has accumulated to soften the
field. The method of stand establishment is most often transplanting on puddled soil; however,
some farmers use direct seeding in puddled soil or direct seeding on dry soil. Preferred varietals and
growing conditions are similar to those of the irrigated lowland environment.
1.2.3.4. Deepwater
The primary characteristic of deepwater rice cultivation is that the crop is surrounded by water of
any depth from 50 cm to 100 cm for more than half of the crop’s growth period. This type of
cultivation method is generally located near river valleys, deltas, and estuaries. This category of rice
cultivation can be quite ambiguous given the differences that can exist including variations in
turbidity of the water, the rate at which the water level increases, the flooding duration, the
temperature of the environment, and the time of occurrence of cultivation. All of these factors
combine to create a wide variety of rice crops that can be classified as deepwater. The most
common method of seeding is direct-‐seeding, although some farmers use transplanting.
The main problems that hinder deepwater rice cultivation include poor stand establishment, high
seedling mortality rates, weed competition, and drought damage at the germination and seedling
stages resulting from direct-‐seeding. Given these potential problems, preferred varietals have traits
such as good seeding vigor, greater submergence tolerance, and enhanced ability to elongate.
Despite these problems, little fertilizer and pesticides are utilized given the ability of flooding
practices to effective manage the growth of weeds. (De Datta 1981)
24

1.2.3.5. Floating
Floating rice cultivation is rarer than the other four cultivation methods and is most common as a
subsistence crop in densely populated areas where no other crops are able to grow. The main
distinction for floating rice cultivation is that the water depth surrounding the plants ranges from 1m
to 6m for more than half of the cultivation period. Ungerminated seeds are broadcasted onto dry
soil at a rate of 60 kg/ha to 130 kg/ha to plant the crop and the rice plants grow as the water level
rises. The issues associated with deepwater rice cultivation exist for floating rice cultivation as well,
but can be intensified. Additionally, traits for varietals that thrive in this type of environment are
similar to those of the preferred traits of deepwater rice varietals. (De Datta 1981)
1.3. International Data
The amount of land dedicated to each method of rice cultivation varies from country to country due
to difference in geography, cultural traditions, water resources, technological advancements and
more. Of the five rice cultivation methods discussed, statistics are compiled concerning the use of
four of them, with floating rice cultivation being omitted due its relative lack of use. The following
statistics are provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and
represent an annual average from 2004 to 2006 of the amount of crop area dedicated to each
growing environment.
1.3.1.Asia
The majority of the crop area for rice cultivation is dedicated to the method of irrigated lowland
cultivation. This constitutes 58.6% of the 135.026 million hectares of total rice crop area and is
heavily influenced by Asian countries in temperate climates, such as China, Japan, and Korea, that
primarily use irrigated lowland rice cultivation. China alone cultivates over 27 million hectares, 93%
of its total rice crop area, via irrigated lowland rice cultivation. The cultivation method occupying
the next largest area is that of rainfed lowland by which over 43 million hectares, or 32.1% of the
total rice crop area, are cultivated. The remainder of the crop area is cultivated in upland (6.7%) and
deepwater (2.6%) environments. (FAO 2006)
1.3.1.1.Thailand
From 2004 to 2006, the average annual crop area committed to rice cultivation in Thailand totaled
10.097 million hectares. Of this, a large majority was rainfed lowland rice cultivation (72.8%), trailing
only Laos and Cambodia in terms of the percentage of total rice crop area cultivate by rainfed
lowland methods. Irrigated lowland constituted the next largest percentage of total rice crop area,
25

with 25% of the total area. The remaining two rice cultivation methods, upland and deepwater,
combined to account for less than 2.5% of the total crop area, amounting to 1.7% and 0.5%,
respectively. (FAO 2006)
1.4. By-‐products and Residues from Rice Cultivation
Depending on the rice variety and the cultivation practices, different amounts of rice residue are
produced. There are three main residues from rice cultivation; rice stubble, rice husks, and rice
straw. Rice stubble is the portion of the rice stalk left in the ground after harvesting. The length of
the stubble depends on the harvesting method, and is an important parameter to consider when
studying the practice of burning residues left in the field. However, because the rice stubble remains
in the ground and is not removed from the field, it is not available for energy purposes and for the
most part is omitted from this feasibility study. Rice husks are the portion of the plant which
surround the actual rice grain, and are typically removed from the field along with the rice grain to
the mill, where they are separated from the grain. Because they are already collected and
transported to a centralized location, rice husks are well suited for utilization such as energy
production. Many companies already utilize rice husks as a biomass for heat or power production,
usually in combination with other biomass or fossil fuels. The Siam Cement Group (SCG) for example
currently derives 25% of the heat required in the production of cement from rice husk. The
remaining 75% comes from traditional fossil fuel, namely coal and lignite. Initially, rice husk was
used purely for economic reasons, as it was much cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives.
However, in the past 2-‐3 years, the price of rice husks has increased greatly due to competition for
this type of biomass. This has led SCG, as well as other companies, to search for alternative biomass
suitable for energy production. Rice straw, for example, is of interest due to the large amounts
produced during rice cultivation, much of which is currently not utilized.
Rice straw is the bulkiest rice residue, and the management of this biomass often creates a problem
for farmers. Most cultivation practices leave the rice straw in the field. Current management
schemes include open burning, incorporation into the soil, use as animal fodder, and conversion into
energy. This paper will focus on the possibility of using rice straw for power production.
It should be noted that rice straw can be divided up into different fractions which have different
properties. Rice straw consists of leaf blades, leaf sheaths, nodes, internodes, and panicles. By
weight, the largest component of rice straw is the sheaths (40.1%), followed by the internodes
(27.7%), leaf blades (21.9%), nodes (6.4%), and panicles (3.9%). (Jin et al, 2006).
26

2. Straw Availability in Thailand
2.1. Pollution Control Department Data
After the National Plan on Open Burning Control was approved in 2003, the Open Burning Control
Plan of Implementation was approved. In order to monitor this plan, the Pollution Control
Department of Thailand needed to evaluate the current status of open biomass residue burning and
its emissions. This study used four methods-‐ literature review, observations via satellite images,
questionnaires/interviews, and laboratory analysis field samples. Each of these methods provided
estimates for how much biomass residue is burned in Thailand.
Using various papers from sources such as the Department of Land Development or the Department
of Agricultural Statistics, the fractions of biomass residues burned were compiled. These values
were compared to field experiments that were conducted by the study to determine the fraction of
burned residues to be used.
Type of Agricultural Fraction burned from Fraction burned from Fraction burned used
literature review field survey for assessment
Rice
Stubbles and 0.2-‐0.12 0.83-‐0.96 0.89
straw
Sugarcane
bagasse - - -
Top and Trash 0.12 0.29-‐0.54 0.39
Maize
Cob - - -
Leaves and Stalks 0.12 0.11-‐0.29 0.2
Table 2.1. Fraction burned from literature review and field experiments. (PCD 2005).
To report possible open burning areas in Thailand, satellite images (collected using MODIS-‐ Terra
and Aqua) recording spots with abnormally high temperature were compared with land use data to
group hotspots according to land use type and to determine the potential type of open burning.
This was used to establish the potential risk areas of open burning in agricultural lands, shown in
Figure 2.1.
27

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000
2300000
2300000
Mapofriskareasofopenburninginagriculturallands
Chiangrai
inThailandin2005
Phayao
2100000
2100000
MaeHongSonChiangMai Nan
LampangPhrae
Lamphun NongKhai
Auttaradit
Loei UdonThaniSakonNakhonNakhonPhanom
1900000
1900000
Sukhothai NongBuaLamphu
Tak PhitsanuLok
Kalasin Mukdahan
KampaengPhetPhichitPhetchabun KhonKaen
Chaiyaphum MahasarakhamRoiEtYasothonAmnajCharoen
NakhonSawan
1700000
1700000
UthaiThani UbonRatchathani
Chainat LopburiNakhonRatchasima
Surin Sisaket
Burirum
KanchanaburiSuphanBuri Saraburi
NakhonNayok
Prachinburi
®
NakhonPrathomBangkok
Chachoengsao Srakaeo
1500000
1500000
Ratchaburi
Chonburi
Phetchaburi RayongChanthaburi
Trat
PrachuapKhilikha 0 60 120 240
Trat
1300000
1300000
Kilometers
Legend
Chumphon
1100000
1100000
Ranong Riskarea(rai)
0-100,000
SuratThani 100,001-500,000
PhangNgaNakhonSiThammarat 500,001-900,000
900000
900000
Krabi
Phuket 900,001-1,300,000
TrangPhatthalung
1,300,001-1,700,000
SatunSongkhla Pattani >1,700,000
Satun
700000
700000
YalaNarathiwat
200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000
Figure 2.1. Risk areas for open burning in Thailand. (PCD 2005)
The results from the satellite images provided estimates for area burned, which could then be used
to calculate the burned area to cultivated area ratio, shown below.
Area burned Area burned (rai) Cultivated Burn/Cultivated

Type of land (km2) area (rai) area ratio
Forest 21,777.62 13,611,012.50 107,531,250.00 12.7
Paddy field 9,151.85 5,719,906.00 57,773,844.00 9.9
(major +
28

Area burned Area burned (rai) Cultivated Burn/Cultivated
Type of land (km2) area (rai) area ratio
second)
Sugarcane 2,940.10 1,837,562.50 6,667,804.00 27.6
fields
Maize fields 4,078.64 2,549,150.00 6,606,653.00 38.6
Total area 37,948.21 23,717,631.00 178,579,551.00 13.3
Table 2.2. Burned to cultivated area. (PCD 2005).
The questionnaires and interviews were aimed at farmers, agricultural officers, and environmental
officers. Sixty farmers in 55 target provinces were interviewed about cultivation and harvest, water
resources, cause of burning, utilization of residues, awareness of negative impacts of burning, and
need for governmental supports. In each of the 55 target provinces, one agricultural officer was also
interviewed about details on cultivation and harvest, burning periods, cause of burning, types of
residues burned, and characteristics of residues before and after burning. In addition, one
environmental officer was interviewed in all 76 provinces of Thailand about burning periods,
awareness of negative impacts of burning, and types of residues burned. The estimates from the
questionnaires and interviews were compiled into the following table.
Type of land Burned/Cultivated Area, α (%) from

Questionnaire/Interview
Forest -
Major rice 50 %
Second rice 75 %
Sugarcane 50 %
Maize 15 %
Table 2.3. Burned to cultivated area from questionnaires and interviews. (PCD 2005).
The following are conclusions about rice straw burning in Thailand from the Pollution Control
Department study. Major rice plantations correspond with the areas where hotspots were most
prevalent and second rice areas were the only areas with hotspots all year round. Also, open
burning on major rice plantations in Central, Northern, and Northeast Thailand occurred between
January to February and an average of 50% of cultivated fields were burned. For second rice areas,
which are mostly in Central and Northern Thailand, about 75% of fields were burned. The main
reason for burning, collected from the questionnaires and interviews with farmers, was to facilitate
land preparation for the next crop. From the study, the 10 provinces with the highest risk areas for
29

open burning are Nakhorn Sawan, Nakhorn Ratchasima, Suphanburi, Ubon Ratchathani, Khon Kaen,
Burirum, Roi Et, Surin, Pichit, and Udon Thani.
2.1.1. Thailand Residue Burn Data
From the Pollution Control Department’s study, the following figures depict the percentages of fields
that burned by province and region, and of those that burn, the amount of residue burned.
Figure 2.2. Residue Utilization-‐ Northern Thailand. (PCD 2005).
Figure 2.3. Residue Utilization-‐ Northeast Thailand. (PCD 2005).
30

Figure 2.4. Residue Utilization-‐ Central Thailand. (PCD 2005).
Figure 2.5. Residue Utilization-‐ Southern Thailand. (PCD 2005).
From this data, the majority of Thailand does not burn rice straw, except for in the central
region. And, of those that do burn, most farms burn all of their rice straw.
31

Figure 2.6. Amount of Residue Burned-‐ Northern Thailand. (PCD 2005).
Figure 2.7. Amount of Residue Burned-‐ Northeast Thailand. (PCD 2005).
32

Figure 2.8. Amount of Residue Burned-‐ Central Thailand. (PCD 2005).
Figure 2.9. Amount of Residue Burned-‐ Southern Thailand. (PCD 2005).
The data that was gathered from our trip to Chainat, Nakhorn Sawa, Suphanburi, and Chiang Mai
was similar to the PCD data. The graphs can be found in Appendix A.
33

2.2. Rice Straw Availability in Thailand
There are two methods by which the amount of rice straw produced from rice cultivation can be
determined. These methods, established on a farm by farm basis, can then be scaled up based up to
provincial, regional, and national scales. Each of these methods rely upon statistics commonly
collected concerning annual rice cultivation, such as harvested area and rough rice production.
2.2.1. Area
The first method entails calculating the amount of rice straw produced within a certain area and
then multiplying that by the total harvested area. The amount of straw produced by this method is
dependent upon a number of factors, with two of the key factors being type of rice varietal planted
and the spacing of the rice plants. As discussed previously, the spacing between rice plants within a
plot is extremely variable, especially given the lack of variability in yield over a specific range of
spacings. (De Datta 1981) Given lack of consistency among farms, this method lacks the ability to
provide a reliable estimate of the amount of rice straw produced through straw cultivation.
2.2.2. Straw to Grain Ratio (SGR) and Harvest Index (HI)
The second, and more preferable, method is to use a value known as the straw to grain ratio (SGR)
and apply it to rice production data to determine the amount of straw produced. The SGR is defined
as the ratio of straw produced to the amount of rice produced. This ratio can then be multiplied by
the amount of rough rice produced, statistics of which are meticulously kept given that the rice grain
is the source of economic revenue from rice cultivation. Further support for the use of the SGR to
determine the amount of straw produced arises from a study conducted by Shen, Ni, and Sunstol. A
wide array of varietals were studied across multiple seasons and it was found that grain yield
strongly correlated with straw production, with an r value of 0.99. (Shen 1998)
Two other ratios that are similar to the SGR are the grain to straw ratio (GSR), simply the inverse of
the SGR, and the harvest index (HI). The latter of these is a ratio of the dry grain yield to the total
above ground dry matter yield of the plant. (Passioura 2006) The total dry matter of the rice crop
includes stubble, straw, rachis, filled spikelets, and unfilled spikelets. (Peng 2006) Another way of
interpreting it is as a ratio of the economic yield of the crop to the biological yield of the crop. This
interpretation is used to rationalize research efforts to improve the HI of rice crops, thereby ensuring
that more of the agricultural inputs translate into a higher economic yield. (Yoshida 1981)
Values for SGR and HI vary based upon the varietal, the cultivation environment, and climatic
variables, with the most significant factor being the varietal type. Commonly cited values for the HI
34

range from approximately 0.40 to 1.0, while straw to grain ratios range from 0.3 to 2.1. (Romyen
1998; Summers 2003) Higher yielding varietals usually have higher HI values and lower SGR values.
HI values are common throughout the literature, but the same is not true for SGR values. Although
the two values are related to an extent, there is no effective way to translate an HI value into a
corresponding SGR. Given the fact that the SGR deals specifically with the rice crop residue analyzed
by this paper, it will be the ratio used in all of the calculations.
2.2.3. Methodology
The amount of rice straw available annually in Thailand will be calculated through the use of varietal
specific SGRs and rough rice production statistics available on a provincial level. The SGR of each
varietal will be applied to the portion of the total rice production that is occupied by that specific
varietal and a sum of the rice straw produced by each varietal will be calculated to provide the
amount of rice straw produced within each province. Then, using the data collected by the PCD
survey concerning the utilization of rice straw, the percentage of rice straw burned will be assumed
to be the percentage of rice straw currently unused and therefore available for collection and use.
Applying these provincially specific percentages to each province, the amount of rice straw available
for utilization will be calculated.
2.2.3.1. Rice Production Statistics
Statistics for the amount of rough rice produced on a national level and on a provincial level from
1993 to 2006 were available through the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The amount of
rice straw available was calculated for the years 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2006. This illustrates any
trends in rice straw production and also provides the amount of rice straw for the most recent year
for which data is available. Statistics were available for total rice production, major rice production,
and second rice production; however the data was not always consistent given that the sum of the
major rice and second rice within certain provinces was different from the value provided for the
total rice within the province. (FAO 2007)
2.2.3.2. Varietals
Of particular importance to the calculation of the amount of rice straw available within Thailand is
the different varietals grown within the country as these different varietals have different SGRs. All
of the previous estimates within the literature of rice straw availability in Thailand use a single SGR
for the entire country and this value is not usually representative of the rice varietals grown within
the country.
35

There are three main categories of rice varietals grown within Thailand: aromatic (KDML
derivatives), traditional, and high yielding varietals (HYV). The aromatic varietals, comprised mainly
of KDML105 and its derivatives RD6 and RD15, are common in the northeastern region of Thailand
and are important as an export crop. Yields for these varietals are typically lower, yet the rice
produced has a greater market value and therefore lower yields can be tolerated by farmers. (Singh
2000) Traditional varieties are common in the northern and southern regions, while the remainder
of cropland is dedicated to HYVs. Statistics are available for the amount of land area over which
each category was planted for 1996 from the Office of Agricultural Economics. (Rerkasem 2002)
2.2.3.3. SGR Differences
SGRs for each of the categories were calculated using literature data. Compare to other varietals,
HYVs typically have lower SGRs. Witt et al. analyzed the cultivation of modern, semi-‐dwarf HYVs in
over 200 fields throughout six Asian countries, one of which was Thailand, over a four year period.
This data was taken to be representative of irrigated lowland agriculture in South and Southeast
Asia. Using the mean grain yield and mean straw yield, the SGR of the HYVs was determined to be
1.05. (Witt 1999) This was the SGR then applied to the HYV category of rice cultivation in Thailand.
There was a lack of information concerning the SGRs of traditional varietals and given the wide
range of traditional varietals, it was difficult to determine a single value for that category. As a
result, the two categories of traditional varietals and HYVs were combined into a single category.
The SGR for this single category was assumed to 1.05, the same as that for the HYV category alone.
Although not entirely accurate, this at the very least underestimates the amount of straw produced
given that traditional varietals are typically taller and have higher SGRs. (Yoshida 1981)
The SGR of the aromatic rices was calculated using data collected in a 1991 survey of two Thai
villages from separate provinces in northeastern Thailand. Within one village RD6 was planted over
73.9% of the area and KDML105 was planted over 14.5% of the area. The average SGR for this
village was 1.26. The other village planted 46.8% and 50.5% of the rice land to RD6 and KDML105,
respectively, producing an average SGR of 1.26. Since the average SGR remained the same even
with different amounts of land area dedicated to each varietal it was concluded that the SGR of both
RD6 and KDML105 is 1.26. Using this same SGR for both, and also for RD15, can further be
rationalized by the fact that RD15 and RD6 are simply mutations produced by radiation of KDML105.
(Miyagawa 1996)
36

2.2.3.4. Regional Differences
As discussed previously, each of the four regions within Thailand has its own distinct growing
environment and cultivation practices. Additionally, the rice varietals grown in each vary as well.
Using the two categories of aromatic varietals and traditional/HYVs, the amount of each category of
rice produced in each region was determined using the statistics for 1996 from the OAE. Given that
specific rice production statistics were not given for each varietal type within each region,
assumptions were made based upon the percentage of land area dedicated to the planting of each
type of varietal.
Following are the steps taken to determine the amount of rice straw available annually both
provincially and nationally for Thailand. The only data available included total production of
aromatic rices for Thailand as a whole, the amount of planted area dedicated to the cultivation of
aromatic rices in each of the four regions, and the amount of rice produced annually in each
province. (Rerkasem 2002; Singh 2000; FAO 2007)
1. Using this data, the percentage of aromatic rice planted area in each province compared to
the total national aromatic rice planted area was determined.

(% of planted area in region) = (aromatic planted area in region) / (total national aromatic planted
area)

2. It was then assumed that these percentages indicated the percentage of total aromatic rice
production occurring in each region. This was then used to determine the total amount of aromatic
rices produced in each of the four regions. One inherent assumption is that the yields for aromatic
rices in all of the regions were similar, which is most likely not entirely accurate.

(aromatic rice production in region) = (% of planted area in region) x (total national aromatic rice
production)

3. The amount of aromatic rice produced in each region was then used along with the total
amount of rice production in each region to calculate the percentage of rice production in the region
that could be attributed to aromatic rice.

(% of production due to aromatic rice) = (aromatic rice production in region) / (total rice production
in region)
37

4. This percentage of regional rice production occupied by aromatic rices was then applied to
each province within the region to determine how much rice in each province was aromatic rice.
This assumes that each province uses similar means to produce rice, which is not necessarily
accurate; however, it was the best assumption that could be made given the data available.

5. The remaining rice production in each province was then assumed to be traditional and HYV
rice.
Table 2.4. highlights the results of the previous calculations.
North Northeast Central South Total

Aromatic 19.24 88.87 7.70 3.86 47.08
Traditional/HYV 80.76 11.13 92.30 96.14 52.92
Table 2.4. Percentage total annual rice production of each rice varietal type grown in the four
regions of Thailand.
2.2.3.5. PCD Data
Survey data from the PCD was used to determine the amount of farmers that burn rice straw from
the harvest and what percentage of the rice straw they did burn. The PCD surveys provided data for
55 provinces: X in the northern region, Y in the northeastern region, Z in the central region, and W in
the southern region. The steps taken to calculate the amount of rice straw that was burned were as
follows.
1. For each province for which data was available, it was determined what percentage of
farmers burns at least some portion of their rice straw.
2. Of this percentage of farmers, it was then determined how much straw they burned. The
categories to which farmers could respond were “all burned”, “more than 80% burned”, “more than
50% burned”, “less than 50% burned”, and “no answer”. For the purposes of the calculations it was
assumed that those that selected “all burned” burned 100% of their rice straw, those that selected
“more than 80% burned” burned 80% of their rice straw, those that selected “more than 50%
burned” burned 50% of their rice straw, and all the other respondents burned 0% of their rice straw.
These are conservative estimates, but are the only logical estimates that can be made based upon
the data.
38

3. The calculations from steps one and two were then combined to determine the total
amount of rice straw burned in each province. The total amount of all rice straw burned by farmers
burning 100% of their rice straw was calculated by multiplying the percentage of farmers that burn
by the percentage that burned 100% of their rice straw and then multiplied by a factor of 1. The
process was then repeated for those farmers burning at least 80% of their rice straw and those
burning at least 50% of their straw, using factors of 0.8 and 0.5, respectively. These results were
then summed to determine the total percentage of all rice straw that was burned by farmers in each
province.

(% of all rice straw burned) =
[(% of farmers that burn) x (% of farmers that burn all) x 1] +
[(% of farmers that burn) x (% of farmers that burn at least 80%) x 0.8] +
[(% of farmers that burn) x (% of farmers that burn at least 50%) x 0.5]

4. These percentages were then applied to the amount of rice straw produced in each
province. If data was available for a specific province, it was applied directly to that province’s rice
production statistics. If no data was available, a regional average was taken and applied to the
provinces within the region with no specific data.

2.2.3.6. Rice Straw Availability
To determine the total amount of rice straw produced, the following was conducted for each
province. The total rice production in each province was multiplied by the percentage of aromatic
rice production within the province and also the SGR for the aromatic rice. The same was then
conducted for traditional rices and HYVs using the percentage of traditional and HYV rice production
within the province and the SGR for these types of rice. These two values were then summed to
determine the total amount of rice straw produced within each province.
To determine the amount of rice straw that is burned and therefore available for use in other
applications, the PCD data on burning was used. The total amount of rice straw produced in each
province was multiplied by the percentage of rice straw burned in that specific province.
Both the total amount of rice straw produced and the total amount of rice straw available were then
found on a regional and then national level. Additionally, both of these values were found for the
major and second rice seasons to provide intra-‐annual rice straw statistics. For these calculations, it
39

was assumed that all aromatic rice was grown in the major season. Table 2.5 shows the percentage
of each type of rice produced in each region.
North Northeast Central South Total

Aromatic 19.24 88.87 7.70 3.86 47.08
Traditional/HYV 80.76 11.13 92.30 96.14 52.92
Table 2.5. Percentage total major rice production of each rice varietal type grown in the four regions
of Thailand.
2.2.4. Results
The total amount of rice straw produced and total amount of rice straw burned for each
region and each province was calculated. In addition to the total amount, the amounts of rice straw
produced in the major rice and second rice seasons were calculated. The sum of the rice straw
produced in the major and second rice seasons is not equivalent to the total amount of rice straw
since the data was not entirely consistent between total, major, and second rice. The full set of
collected and calculated data is provided in Appendix B-‐D.
2.2.4.1. Rice Straw Produced

2.2.4.1.1. Total
The total amount of rice straw produced in Thailand in 1995, 2000, 2005, and the most recent year
for data, 2006, are is illustrated in Figure 2.10 below. The amount of rice straw produced has
increased over the past decade, from 24.93 Mt in 1995 to 29.20 Mt in 2000 to 34.15 Mt in 2005.
There was a slight decrease to 33.21 Mt from 2005 to 2006. In each of these years, the majority of
the rice straw was produced in the northeastern provinces, while North Thailand and Central
Thailand each produced similar amounts of rice straw.
40

Figure 2.10. Total rice straw produced, in tons, by region in Thailand.
The twelve provinces that produced the most rice straw in 2006 each produced at least 1 Mt,
meaning 16% of the provinces produced more than 40% of Thailand rice straw. Of these twelve
provinces, seven were located in Northeast Thailand, while three were located in North Thailand,
and the remaining two were located in Central Thailand. Table 2.6 lists the twelve provinces below.
Rice Straw Produced

Province Region
(tons)
Nakhon Sawan N 1784100
Suphan Buri C 1585768
Phichit N 1232034
Nakhon
NE 1203357
Ratchasima
Surin NE 1179002
Ubon Ratchathani NE 1172273
Phitsanulok N 1114638
Buri Ram NE 112748
Chai Nat C 1095561
Roi Et NE 1085355
Khon Kaen NE 1045174
Si Sa Ket NE 1013077
Table 2.6. The top twelve rice straw producing provinces in Thailand in 2006.
41

2.2.4.1.2. Major and Second Rice
Clear differences emerge within the data when the amount of rice straw produced from the major
rice crop and the second rice crop are compared. One item to note is that the major rice crop in
South Thailand is planted at the time that the other three regions plant their second rice. The
majority of the rice straw produced in Northeast Thailand is produced by major rice, since most
farms are only able to plant a single crop each year. This is illustrated in Figure 2.11 below.
Figure 2.11. Total rice straw produced by major rice, in tons, by region in Thailand.
The remainder of the rice straw that is produced in Thailand is produced from the second rice crop.
Central Thailand, with larger farms and greater access to irrigation, dominates the rice straw
production during the second rice cultivation period. North Thailand also produces a substantial
amount, however over the course of the year, the central provinces are more consistent in terms of
total rice straw produced. The provinces in South Thailand produce a negligible amount of rice straw
when compared with the other regions, although it has the same production as Northeast Thailand
in terms of second rice.
42

Figure 2.12. Total rice straw produced by second rice, in tons, by region in Thailand.
2.2.4.2. Rice Straw Burned
When all of the utilizations of rice straw are taken into account, the amount of residues that are
burned, and therefore available for other uses, are substantially lower than the total amount
produced. This portion of the rice straw that is currently burned could potentially be used for other
purposes, providing both a source of energy and also avoiding the emissions associated with open
field burning.
2.2.4.2.1. Total
The amount of rice straw burned in Thailand in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2006 was 3.08 Mt, 3.82 Mt,
4.53 Mt, and 4.32 Mt, respectively. By this data, approximately 13% of the total rice straw produced
each year was subjected to burning. The portion produced by each region is illustrated in Figure
2.13.
43

Figure 2.13. Total rice straw burned, in tons, by region in Thailand.
Despite the fact that Northeast Thailand produces more rice straw, less of it is burned,
making less available. This is logical because farmers in this region are typically only able to plant a
single crop each year, which eliminates the need to quickly remove the residue for a second crop.
The opposite is true in Central Thailand where two, and sometime three, rice crops are grown each
year. Averages for the amount of rice straw burned in each region are given in Table 2.7.
Amount of Rice Straw Burned

Region
(%)
North 4.75
Northeast 5.09
Central 43.46
South 1.64
Table 2.7. Percentage of rice straw burned in each region of Thailand.
2.2.4.2.2. Major and Second Rice
In terms of rice straw produced from major rice and second rice, Central Thailand burns the most of
both of the crops. In fact, the amount of rice straw available, if not burned, is greater than 1 Mt for
each crop in Central Thailand. The regions that produce the next largest amounts of rice straw that
are burned are Northeast Thailand and then North Thailand. The amount of rice straw from second
rice that is burned is negligible in South Thailand and Northeast Thailand. Figures 2.14 and 2.15
illustrate the amount of rice straw from major rice and from second rice that is burned in each
region.
44

Figure 2.14. Total rice straw from major rice burned, in tons, by region in Thailand.
Figure 2.15. Total rice straw from second rice burned, in tons, by region in Thailand.
3. Rice Straw Utilization

3.1. Current Management Practices
3.1.1. Burning
Burning has been the most common practice to dispose of crop residue since it requires the least
amount of work. Burning is a cost effective way to dispose of rice straw since there will be no cost
for storage or transportation if utilization practices were applied. Also, burning rice straw can
facilitate tillage for the next crop and keep pest and disease problems at a minimum. However, in
45

recent years, research has been conducted about the environmental impacts and health concerns
surrounding burning as well as the energy potential of crop residues.
Rice straw has many nutrients that are useful to maintain soil fertility and when burned, this causes
complete N loss, P losses of about 25%, K losses of about 20%, and S losses of 5% to 60%.
(Dobermann 2002).
The burning of rice straw produces emissions of gases, such as carbon monoxide and methane,
which contribute to global warming as well as particulate matter that can have adverse health
effects. For example, a study was conducted in China to estimate the emissions from field burning
of crop straw and the following emissions were measured.
Table3.1. Emissions from burning rice straw in China during 2001-‐2003. (Cao 2008)
As seen in Table 3.1, there are significant emissions from burning crop straw. In this study, the
emissions determined contributed to the total national emission as follows: BC (11.17%), VOC
(10.78%), OC (10.37%), CO (7.71%), CO2 (6.13%), NOx (3.63%), NH3(1.49%), CH4 (0.68%), SO2
(0.05%). (Cao 2008). The Chinese government has now “banned the field burning of crop straws
and even applied satellite technology to monitor the open burning in rural areas, but the effect is far
from satisfactory” (Cao 2008). Burning crop residue, while convenient for farmers, has many
adverse effects and does not take advantage of its potential for alternatives uses.
3.2. Utilization
3.2.1. Offsite
Rice straw that is removed from the fields can be used as animal fodder, fertilizer, fiber for paper, to
promote mushroom growth, or sold. However, completely removing rice straw from fields, which is
widespread in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal, can lead to depletion of soil K and Si reserves at many
sites. (Dobermann 2002). Removing rice straw can also diminish other nutrients that are important
to soil fertility.
46

Table 3.2. Nutrients removed with 1 tonne of rice straw. (Dobermann 2002).
3.2.2. Onsite
While short term incorporation has small effects of rice growth and yield, long-‐term incorporation
has many benefits since “grain yields when straw was incorporated were higher than when straw
was burned.” (Bird 2002). By incorporating rice straw, “reserves of soil N, P, K, and Si are maintained
and may even be increased.” (Dobermann 2002). A study done in California examining the nutrient
requirements of rice found that “when rice straw and stubble are incorporated into the soil
following harvest and then flooded during the winter, it can improve soil properties and serve as a
source of nutrients for the following crop.” (Byous 2004). Also, incorporating rice straw can cause an
increase in the nitrogen content of the soil, thus reducing the needs and costs for nitrogen fertilizers.
(Bird 2002).
However, incorporation can also generate some possible negative impacts. In another study done in
California, “there was an increase in the weed population when straw was incorporated,” (Bird
2002) which is damaging towards crops. Also, incorporating rice straw into wet soil can lead to
“temporary immobilization of N and a significant increase in methane emission…that contributes to
greenhouse gases.” (Dobermann 2002). Another obstacle for incorporation of rice straw is that it is
“either highly labor intensive or requires suitable machinery for land preparation,” (Dobermann
2002) which does not encourage farmers to consider rice straw for this type of use.
3.3. Rice Straw Utilization in Thailand
In Thailand, almost 50% of rice straw is burned in the field and other utilizations of rice straw are
shown in the following table. (Gadde 2007).
47

Table3.3. Current uses of rice straw in Thailand. (Gadde 2007)
Currently, using rice straw as fuel is uncommon, but there is much potential in rice straw as an
energy source, as shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4. Energy potential of rice straw. (Visvanathan 2006).
The difficulty in promoting rice straw as fuel is that farmers have no incentives to invest in costs for
collecting rice straw off fields and looking for alternative uses.
4. Assessment of Technologies for Heat and Power Production

4.1. Combustion
Combustion is the thermochemical conversion of stored energy of a solid fuel into thermal
energy that can be utilized to produce heat, which in turn can produce steam then electricity. It is
achieved through the oxidation of carbon and hydrogen within the fuel to CO2 and H2O, respectively.
(Demirbas 2004) Of all the thermochemical conversion technologies used to harness energy, it is the
simplest and oldest. (Calvo 2004) Solid fuel is input into a combustion chamber and then heated in
such a way as to produce volatile gases that can then ignited and release thermal energy. The rate
of combustion is directly related to the surface area of the input fuel and as a result, smaller size
fuels are preferred. With this preference for smaller fuels also comes the desire to minimize the
costs of time, money, and energy associated with the pretreatment of the fuel, so most technologies
are described based upon the largest size fuel that can be sufficiently combusted or the range of fuel
48

sizes that can be accepted. Boiler efficiencies of combustion technologies range from 50% to 96%,
while the electrical efficiency of power plants using these technologies can exceed 40%. (van den
Broek 1995) Combustion technologies have been used for a variety of solid fuels, especially coal;
however, interest in the utilization of biomass as a fuel source is being renewed.
4.1.1. Stages of Biomass Combustion
Combustion of solid fuels consists of four stages, each of which is more pronounced for biomass
than for coal and other fossil fuels. These stages are moisture evaporation, pyrolysis, gas
combustion, and char combustion. (Zhou 2005) During the first stage, which occurs up to 200°C, the
biomass fuel is dried and some combustible gases are emitted. The second stage occurs between
approximately 200°C and 280°C and releases up to 80% of the energy content of the fuel. This
energy is achieved through sublimation of the cellulose and hemicelluloses in the solid fuel to
produce combustible, volatile gases and tar. These volatiles are then combusted in the third stage
when the temperature rises to about 500°C and the energy of the gases is released as heat. The
biomass that remains once the volatile gases are released is pure carbon and better known as
charcoal, or char. This remaining char is then combusted in the fourth stage once the temperature
exceeds 500°C. (Calvo 2004; Zhou 2005; van den Broek 1995)
Two important parameters of combustion are the ignition temperature and peak temperature of a
fuel. The ignition temperature is the point at which temperature of the fuel and combustion
chamber undergoes and immediate rise. This allows operators to determine the extent to which the
combustion chamber should be preheated. The second important parameter is the peak
temperature, which is the point temperature at which the rate of weight loss due to combustion is
at a maximum. This parameter illustrates the reactivity of a particular fuel. (Demirbas 2004)
4.1.2. Key Issues

4.1.2.1. Moisture Content of Fuel
The moisture content of the fuel being combusted has a large impact on the efficiency of the
combustion process. Fuel with higher moisture contents require a longer time for combustion since
more moisture must be evaporated. This can be avoided through sufficient preheating, but this
requires energy as well. (Zhou 2005) Fuels with a moisture content greater than 65% are unable to
continue combustion on their own and a secondary fuel is required to ensure combustion continues.
(van de Broek 1995)
49

4.1.2.2. NOx Emissions
NOX emissions, comprised of N2O, NO, and NO2, fall into one of two categories, thermal NOX and fuel
NOX. Thermal NOX emissions arise from oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen in the combustion
chamber, while fuel NOX arises from oxidation of nitrogen within the fuel. Both are dependent upon
the combustion temperature, while the former depends on the amount of excess air in the chamber
and the latter depends on the nitrogen content of the fuel. Of the constituent gases, NO emissions
increase rapidly when the temperature of the combustion chamber surpasses 900°C, but N2O
emissions decrease with increasing combust chamber temperature.
Various options exist for limiting the amount of NOX emissions. First, fuels are seldom utilized.
Second, the temperature of the combustion chamber and amount of excess air at various
temperatures is meticulously controlled. A third option is staged combustion in which the
temperature is controlled in the first stage by limiting the oxygen supply and then the temperature is
controlled by introducing adequate excess air and properly mixing the gases in the second stage.
This option is common in stoker fired and suspension fired boilers. A final option that is common in
pile burners, suspension fired boilers, and fluidized bed boilers is flue gas recirculation. In order to
limit the amount of oxygen and therefore the combustion temperature, flue gases containing small
amounts of oxygen are reinjected into the combustion chamber. (van den Broek 1995)
4.1.2.3. Ash Problems
Two types of ash deposition, slagging and fouling, may occur during the combustion process. Ash
slagging is a process by which molten ash produced as a result of combustion solidifies as it cools
and forms a crust on surfaces of the combustion chamber. (van den Broek 1995) If temperatures are
above the ash fusion temperature, the ash will remain in a molten or semi-‐molten state. This
molten or semi-‐molten ash then lands on surfaces within the chamber and cool to form a solid.
Slagging is enhanced by lower ash melting temperatures, high gas exit temperatures, and smaller
furnaces. (CBI 2005) Biomass fuels typically have ashes with lower ash melting temperatures than
other fossil fuels. (Pronobis 2006) Fouling caused by oxidized inorganic elements from the fuel
condensing on ash in the convective area of the boiler and forming a glue-‐like deposit on the
surfaces. (CBI 2005) One way of determining the tendency of a fuel’s ash to cause fouling is through
the base-‐to-‐acid ratio, with a higher ratio indicating a higher tendency of fouling. Bases consist of
iron oxides, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, sodium oxide, and potassium oxide, while acids are
silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, and titanium oxide. (Pronobis 2006)
50

4.1.3. Power Generation
Thermal energy produced by combustion is used to produce electricity through the used of steam
and a turbine. One of the most common methods is the steam-‐Rankine cycle in which heat released
through combustion produces pressurized steam that then expands through a turbine causing it to
rotate and generate electricity. In order to achieve higher efficiencies, expensive materials are
required for this process, making it only economical on larger scales. Biomass-‐only power plants
rarely reach sufficient scales to achieve economical power generation. (van den Broek 1995)
4.1.4. Rice Straw as a Fuel Source
Rice straw has been studied extensively as a source of biomass for combustion technologies. The
primary parameters for operating combustion technologies with straw include the rate of primary
air flow, the pre-‐heating of primary air, the concentration of oxygen, the moisture content of the
fuel, and the bulk density of the fuel. Higher moisture content straw increases the temperature of
the combustion chamber, potentially increasing emissions of NOX. Straw with lower bulk densities
serve to decrease the bed temperature. (Zhou 2005) The heating value of the straw is another
important factor in the combustion process. Compared to other types of agricultural residues, rice
straw has a lower heating value. (Jenkins 1998) Experimental values of the higher heating values of
different rice straw samples in Thailand ranged from 11 MJ/kg to 15 MJ/kg. However, strong
correlations have been found between larger higher heating values and lower moisture content,
lower ash content, and higher volatile matter content. (Huang 2008)
In terms of ash production, rice straw ash is mainly composed of silica and potassium and has a
lower amount of calcium and phosphorous than wood ash. One potential problem is the presence
of chlorine in the straw, which depends primarily on the soil in which the straw was grown. Chlorine
has a high fouling tendency, yet this can be mitigated if the straw is co-‐fired with fuels that are
relatively rich in sulfur. One way to determine the corrosiveness of the ash is to calculate the sulfur
to chlorine molar ratio. Any fuels with ratios over 4 are classified as non-‐corrosive, while those
under 2 are classified as corrosive. Attaining a non-‐corrosive ratio or sulfur to chlorine can be
achieve by selected the correct type of coal. (Pronobis 2006) Another major problem is the low
melting temperature of rice straw ash, which can lead to slagging within the combustion chamber.
(Khor 2007)
51

4.1.5. Technologies
The four main categories of combustion technologies that can be used for the combustion of
biomass are pile burners, stoker fired boilers, also known as grate fired boilers, suspension fired
boilers, and fluidized bed boilers.
4.1.5.1. Pile Burner
Pile burners, common 50 years ago, were one of the original means of combustion. In this type of
boiler the fuel is piled upon a grate in a lower combustion chamber where it burns and then releases
volatile gases that are then ignited in a secondary upper combustion chamber. The majority of the
fuel is burned on the grate, as opposed to in suspension, and combustion air is fed from both under
the grate and the walls of the chamber to provide oxygen for combustion, to cool the grate, and to
enhance drying of the fuel. The fuel utilized in pile burners can vary in terms of size, moisture
content, and purity. Commonly achieved boiler efficiencies in pile burners range from 50% to 60%.
Despite the fact that pile burners have simple designs, are relatively cheap to construct, and can
accept a wide array of fuels, there are a number of problems associated with the technology. The
combustion process within the boiler is difficult to control given the piled up fuel and the burner
must be shut down regularly to clean the unit. Additionally, high combustion temperatures are
common and this causes ash slagging, which must be removed manually, and high emissions of
thermal NOx. The burner also responds slowly to changes in demand (van den Broek 1995).
4.1.5.2. Stoker Fired Boiler
Stoker fired boilers are characterized by the combustion of small, evenly spread piles of fuel on
grates. There are three main types of stoker fired boilers, with the differences arising from the
whether a sloping grate, a travelling grate, or a vibrating grate is used. All three use a similar type of
stoker spreader fuel feeding system and rely upon air fed through the bottom of the grate for
combustion air and cooling of the grate. These types of boilers accept fuels with a smaller range of
moisture content and are less flexible in terms of quickly switching between different types of fuel.
Stoker fired boilers can attain efficiencies of up to 80%, with traveling grate boilers reaching 84%
efficiency and vibrating grate boilers reaching 96% efficiency.
Advantages associated with this type of combustion technology include a simple and flexible design,
the potential for co-‐firing with fossil fuels, and more efficient combustion due to more evenly spread
fuel. Disadvantages include fuel spreading problems due to differences in bulk density, less
flexibility for fuel switching, and less grate insulation resulting from combustion of fuels with lower
52

ash contents. Higher combustion temperatures can increase the NOx emissions of these boilers;
however, staged combustion is commonly used to reduce these emissions. (van den Broek 1995)
4.1.5.2.1. Sloping Grate
A sloping grate boiler consists of fuel being combusted as it slides down an inclined grate and the
resultant ash collecting on a hinged grate at the bottom that can be periodically released to dump
the ash. This last feature allows for the continuous of the boiler. Of the three types of stoker fired
boilers, this is the oldest and commonly encountered problems include avalanching of the fuel on
the incline and difficulty controlling the rate of combustion.
4.1.5.2.2. Travelling Grate
Traveling grate boilers utilized a lateral or inclined conveyor to transport fuel across the combustion
chamber from the feeding system on one side to the ash disposal system on the other. Problem can
arise from the ash deposited upon the grate following combustion. Slag formation can be
minimized using water cooled walls and a closely controlled fuel velocity along the conveyor can
ensure adequate ash removal.
4.1.5.2.3. Vibrating Grate
The final type of stoker fired boiler, the vibrating grate boiler, requires fuel to be fed in above the
grate and the resulting pile of fuel is leveled through vibrating the grate itself. Water cooled grates
can be utilized to cool the grates, increase combustion temperatures, and increase the percentage of
overfire air, which ensures that fewer particles go unburned. Unlike the other types of stoker fired
boilers, the vibrating grate boiler requires much less maintenance given that it is composed of fewer
moving parts.
4.1.5.3. Suspension Fired Boiler
Suspension fired boilers are similar to the pulverized coal combustion technologies given that fuel is
combusted while suspended in a stream of air within the combustion chamber. The two types of
suspension fired boilers are cyclonic boilers and solid-‐fuel boilers. Cyclonic boilers consist of a
cylindrical combust chamber in which the fuel and air are mixed in the appropriate proportion such
that the fuel is completely combusted by the time it reaches the opposite side of the chamber.
Solid-‐fuel boilers mix the fuel and air in the correct proportion initially and then the mixture is
ignited and combusted.
53

The fuel utilized within suspension fired boilers must have a moisture content less than 15% and can
be no larger than 6 mm in size. Achieving these conditions requires greater fuel preparation and a
more elaborate feeding system, both of which reduce flexibility of the system. Straw in particular
must be dried and then processed to a sufficient size with a hammer-‐mill prior to combustion.
Efficiencies of greater than 80% can be achieved in suspension fired boilers, with the additional
benefit of requiring less excess combustion air. This technology also has a high potential for co-‐firing
given the similarities it shares with pulverized coal combustion technologies. Reduction in fuel and
operating costs and emissions are the benefits of co-‐firing, yet the costs associated with retrofitting
coal boilers can be high and ash slagging is introduced. A final problem associated with suspension
fired boilers is the explosion hazard posed by the fine particles of dry fuel suspended within the
combustion chamber. As a result, close supervision of operating parameters is required. (van den
Broek 1995)
4.1.5.4. Fluidized Bed Boiler
The technology associated with fluidized bed boilers is the most recent of the technologies discussed
in this section. These boilers consist of a bed of inert material, typically sand, that is preheated to
the ignition temperature of the fuel. Fuel is then fed into the chamber and combustion air is
injected through the bottom of the bed of inert material. The result is the rapid mixing of fuel, air,
and inert material and the efficient transfer of heat between the combusting fuel and the inert
material. Greater dispersal of fuel, longer fuel residence times, faster heating of fuel, and increased
storage of thermal energy are all benefits associated with the use of the inert material.
Unlike some of the other combustion technologies, fluidized bed boilers are quite flexible in terms of
the size, moisture content, and ash content of the input fuel. This stems directs from the use of the
inert material and the lower ration of fuel mass to total bed mass. To ensure proper combustion
though, changes to the fuel source or mixing of the fuel should be made gradually. Even with this
flexibility, fouling due to the fuel source may occur. Fuels with higher chlorine content can produce
ammonium chloride, which can cause the visible emissions of a boiler to exceed environmental
regulations. High alkaline fuels produce agglomerations of sodium oxide and potassium oxide that
defluidize the bed and must be removed manually.
It is not uncommon for fluidized bed boilers to reach efficiencies exceeding 90% due to the longer
residence time of the fuel. Benefits of this technology include lower requirements for excess air,
lower combustion temperatures from 800°C to 900°C than reduce NOX emissions, a relatively high
capacity given the low volume, and less preparation of fuels. Emissions reductions can also be
54

achieved by adding a sorbent into the bed material to absorb acidic gases, like SOX. Much like
suspension fired boilers, fluidized bed boilers have a high potential for co-‐firing with fossil fuels.
Separate fuel pretreatment processes and feeding systems are required and more precise control of
the air supply and flue gas recirculation is necessary if there is a substantial difference in the heating
values of the fuels being co-‐fired. Disadvantages of this technology include the potential for greater
N2O emissions at lower combustion temperatures, higher capital costs, and higher energy inputs for
the fans injecting the combustion air. (van den Broek 1995)
The two most common types of fluidized bed boilers are bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) boilers and
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers.
4.1.5.4.1. Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB)
Bubbling fluidized bed boilers operate with a lower fluidization velocity, which ranges from 1 m/s to
3 m/s. This lower velocity is meant to prevent any inert material from escaping the combustion
chamber. Any inert material that does manage to escape is collected and returned periodically to
the combustion chamber via a small cyclone. Of the two types of fluidized bed boilers, this is usually
cheaper in terms of capital costs.
4.1.5.4.2. Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB)
Unlike in BFB boilers, it is desired for the inert material to escape the combustion chamber with the
flue gases. To achieve this, fluidization velocities of 4 m/s to 12 m/s are used. A large cyclone is
used to separate the inert material from the flue gas and constantly reinject the inert material into
the combustion chamber. Despite having higher capital costs, this type of fluidized bed boiler is
used more extensively.
4.1.6. Suggestions
The most promising and economically viable form of combustion technology for the utilization of
rice straw is the fluidized bed boiler. Given its ability to handle fuels with a range of particle sizes,
moisture contents, and ash contents, less pretreatment and processing is necessary. Both lower
combustion temperatures that reduce NOX emissions and ash minerals that retain sulfur at an
efficiency of 35% to 55% eliminate the need for costly flue gas cleaning devices. (Okasha 2007) Even
with these benefits, using rice straw as the sole fuel source is not feasible. Issues ranging a difficulty
of obtaining a constant, year round supply of fuel and an inability to achieve a large-‐scale facility that
is economical, hinder the potential of rice straw-‐only facilities. Instead, the ideal option is the co-‐
firing of rice-‐straw with coal in existing fluidized bed boilers. The costs adding in a separate fuel
55

feeding line and additional oversight of combustion conditions and ash production are minimal.
Additionally, although the efficiency of the boiler will decrease some, the end efficiency will still be
greater than that which could be achieved firing rice straw alone.
4.2. Gasification
Gasification is a thermochemical conversion process in which biomass is converted into a high
energy gas called syngas which can be combusted further to provide energy. Syngas is a more
versatile and efficient fuel than the original biomass, and can be used as a natural gas replacement.
The quality and calorific value of the syngas depends on the characteristics of the biomass used, as
well as the gasifying agent, method of conversion, and operating conditions. The highest calorific
value syngas is usually produced using hydrogen as the gasifying agent, although air is probably the
most common agent used. (McKendry 2002)
There are two main types of gasifiers, with variations within each. The fixed bed gasifier is the
traditional technology, and includes updraft, downdraft, and crossbed systems. The difference
within each is where and in which direction the feed and fuel gas are introduced. Typically, fixed
bed gasifiers produce lower calorific value syngas with high tar content. (McKendry 2002). The
fluidized bed gasification technology includes systems such as circling bed and bubbling bed. These
gasifiers are advantageous over fixed bed gasifiers in that they have uniform temperature within the
gasification zone. However, there are often problems with slagging due to ash content of the
biomass. To some extent this can be amended by lowering the temperature, although this can
results in lower efficiency.
In terms of using rice straw as the biomass fuel for gasification, there are still many problems to be
overcome. Rice straw has a high alkalinity content which creates many problems with slagging in
boilers. The potassium and chloride content of rice straw contribute especially to the accumulation
of slag. (Forrest 1997) A possible solution to this problem is to leave the rice straw in the fields for a
longer period of time to allow for natural leaching of alkalines. However, farmers are likely to be
unwilling to do this as it reduces field turnover time and may prove uneconomic. Another problem
with rice straw is the high silica content of rice straw, which results in high ash content. This reduces
the energy efficiency of the technology as the ash must be removed and disposed of. Finally, the
pretreatment of rice straw required for successful gasification is often extensive. The fuel
requirements vary depending on the specific technology to be used, but generally the rice straw
must be dried to a moisture content less than 10-‐15%, chopped, and ground into fine particles or
56

passed through a screen. Typically the size requirements are between 20 and 80 mm (McKendry
2002).
Overall, the thermal efficiency of gasifiers range anywhere from 50% to 75% (NREL 2004). There are
limited commercial situations where rice straw is the main fuel used for gasification, however a pilot
plant in California has reported a thermal efficiency of 70%, with a daily energy output of 3.80 E7
BTU/day. This was using rice straw with a calculated energy content of 5.650 BTU/lb. (NREL 2004).
However, this was for a relatively small scale plant. For a commercial plant, efficiency may be lower
as there are more energy demands associated with a system of this scale.
Although the technology for biomass gasification has been well proven and is already in use in many
facilities, there are only a few cases where rice straw has been the biomass used. For the most part,
rice straw for gasification is being used only on a demonstration level, rather than full
implementation in industry. As mentioned above, many problems regarding the quality of rice straw
need to be overcome before this method of conversion can be economically attractive enough to be
used on a large scale. During a test of 47 tons of rice straw for gasification, Primenergy Inc. found
that while the conversion was successful, rice straw was a more expensive fuel compared with other
biomass because it must be chopped prior to use. Rice straw also required adaptations in the
feeding process as it had a tendency to build up and clog the system. (Forrest 1997)
4.3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a type of thermochemical conversion technology that involves direct liquefaction using
heat and pressure in the absence of oxygen to produce oil, syngas, and char. While combustion and
gasification are efficient on a large scale, there are high costs to collect, transport, handle, and store
crop residues. Although pyrolysis is slightly less efficient than gasification, by using pyrolysis,
biomass can be converted to bio-‐oil that can be transported easily to act as a fuel for combustion or
gasification. In order to be as efficient as possible , pyrolysis requires “small (<10 mm) and dry
(<10wt% moisture) biomass feedstock,” which can typically produce bio-‐oil yields of “60-‐80wt%.”
(Zhu 2003). There are two main types of pyrolysis-‐ fast pyrolysis and slow pyrolysis.
4.3.1. Fast (flash) pyrolysis
In fast pyrolysis, biomass wastes, such as rice straw is fed into a fluidized bed reactor and heated to
around 400-‐500°C, where maximum rate of devolatilization occurs . The rice straw vaporizes to gas,
which can be burned or condensed into liquid, or becomes char. This process all occurs within two
seconds.
57

4.3.2. Slow (vacuum) pyrolysis
Slow pyrolysis occurs in a vacuum so that organic matter that is being heated will have a lower
boiling point and can avoid unwanted chemical reactions. However, to utilize slow pyrolysis, the
biomass waste must be less than 6 mm, although 1-‐2 mm is best. Also, the biomass must have less
than 10% moisture content in order to guarantee high heat transfer rate.
4.3.3. Pyrolytic Bio-‐oils
A study was done in Bangladesh that researched the fuel properties of bio-‐oils from pyrolysis of rice
straw in Bangladesh. The properties of pyrolytic oils that are important to examine are discussed
further. The findings of this report were that the pyrolytic liquids from fast pyrolysis had a high
density (1.2 kg/L), were acidic (pH of 2.8-‐3.8), had high water content (15-‐30% by weight), and
moderate heating value (14-‐18.5 MJ/kg gross calorific value on wet basis). (Islam 2003).
4.3.3.1. Kinematic Viscosity
Kinematic viscosity describes the resistance to gravity flow of a fluid, which is important because this
can affect its flow through pipelines. Bio-‐oils from pyrolysis typically have a viscosity that makes
them “suitable to be pumped and atomized.” (Zhu 2003).
4.3.3.2. Density
Density is important to calculate volumetric output of pumps and injectors and while for
hydrocarbon oils, density refers to polycyclic aromatic content, density for bio-‐oils refers to high
oxygen content. The density of bio-‐oils is usually higher than hydrocarbon oils and typically, bio-‐oils
with high density have lower water content, which is a desired characteristic for fuels.
4.3.3.3. Ash Content
Ash is the incombustible material that is left when fuel is burnt. High ash content can be harmful in
combustion processes because it lowers the calorific value of the fuel. Also, high ash content
produces high wear in pumps and injectors while creating deposits in combustion equipment.
However, the ash content in bio-‐oils is “a factor of 100 lower than in biomass” (Zhu 2003) since the
alkali content in biomass remains in the char product.
58

4.3.3.4. pH Level
The pH level measures the acidity of the oil and consequently, its corrosiveness. Bio-‐oils are typically
highly acidic due to their carboxylic acid content, which makes them corrosive to mild steel,
aluminum, etc.
4.3.3.5. Flash Point
The flash point of a liquid is the temperature where the vapors from the fuel will ignite if a flame is
passed through, which reports the volatility of the oil and its ability to ignite. The higher the flash
point, the safer an oil is to handle since the risk of accidental ignition will be lower. The usual flash
point temperature of pyrolytic oils is around 103°C.
4.3.3.6. Pour Point
The pour point is the lowest temperature the oil can be pumped without heating the storage tank
and the typical value for bio-‐oils is -‐8°C.
4.3.3.7.Gross Calorific Value
The gross calorific value describes the quantity of heat released in total combustion. Pyrolytic
liquids, like bio-‐oils, usually have higher water content so there is poor ignition. The normal lower
heating value of pyrolytic bio-‐oils is 12.8-‐17.8 MJ/kg. (Islam 2003).
4.3.4. Costs
The majority of costs for pyrolysis are capital investments, mainly from equipment. Other major
costs include purchasing crop residues, maintenance, labor fees, etc. In general, the higher the
capacity of the pyrolysis equipment, the lower its capital cost of per unit and the lower its
depreciation cost. However, higher capacity pyrolysis equipment will mean larger amounts of
biomass, so the cost of collection and transportation will be higher. The study done in Bangladesh
summarized approximate production costs for pyrolysis of crop residues, shown in the Table 4.1.
59

Table 4.1. Production costs for pyrolysis of rice straw in Bangladesh, in taka (1 USD is about 68 taka).
(Islam 2003).
Pyrolysis is a relatively inexpensive way to convert rice straw into a more convenient form of fuel
and with more research and development, it may become a better alternative biomass conversion
technology.
4.4. Biomethanation
Biomethanation refers to the broad spectrum of bio-‐conversion technologies that convert biological
materials into biogas through anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic degradation refers to the biological
process during which organic carbon is converted through oxidation and reduction to carbon
dioxide, the most oxidized state of the input carbon, and methane, the most reduced state. A wide
range of microorganisms can facilitate this process under anaerobic conditions and the main
products are carbon dioxide and methane, but minor gases such as nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia,
and hydrogen sulfide are also produced but typically comprise less than one percent of the total
gaseous volume (Angelidaki et al 2003).
60

4.4.1. Requirements for the Technology
Biomethanation requires a feedstock of degradable material made up of carbon based, complex
polymers, such as polysaccharides and lipids, which will be broken down by the microbial
consortium present in the reactor. With rice straw, the main carbon based compounds are cellulose,
pentosan, and lignin. Cellulose and pentosan are ideal for degradation under anaerobic conditions,
but lignin, on the other hand, represents a barrier to anaerobic digestion; lignin, and its resulting
carbohydrate complexes, prevents the degradation of some of the cellulosic materials within the
feedstock (Yadvika 2004). It is generally found that during anaerobic digestion microorganisms
utilize carbon 25 to 30 times faster than they utilize Nitrogen. Therefore carbon in a good
biomethanation feedstock must be present in the feedstock in a 20-‐30:1 ratio of carbon to nitrogen,
having the largest percentage of the carbon being held in degradable sources such as the
aforementioned cellulose or pentosan. This is to say that if the largest percentage of the carbon is
retained in inaccessible sources, such as lignin carbohydrate complexes, the fuel won’t be as
effectively digested without necessary pretreatment due to the inaccessibility of the carbon
compounds to the methanogens (Yadvika 2004). Thus in many cases lignin degradation is necessary
for proceeding with anaerobic digestion of many agricultural residues, such as rice straw, in order to
increase biogas production. These lignin carbohydrate complexes are resistant to anaerobic
degradation but can be degraded by other means such as aerobic degradation via fungi such as
“Brown or White Rot”, treatment of the straw with an alkali or acid, as well as other possible
processes (Ghosh and Bhattacharyya 1999, Yadvika 2004). In addition to a degradable feedstock,
the process requires a culture of microorganisms which can be initially supplied through a dedicated
culture of organisms or an animal manure slurry. After the first utilization, a portion of the partially
digested residue can be utilized as the starting culture of microorganisms (SPRERI 2006). Additional
compounds can be added to increase gas production such as caster cake, which works to maintain
the carbon to nitrogen ratio, as well as a small mass of iron (III) chloride (FeCl3), which works to
accelerate the biomethanation process (SPRERI 2006-‐2008). The characteristics of the environment
under which biomethanation proceeds also effects the amount of gas produced, most notable of
these characteristics being the temperature. Microbes have been shown to be most active between
30 and 60 degrees centigrade (Yadvika 2004). With the abundant sunshine and solar radiation
available in Thailand, it makes sense to take advantage of constructing the digester to take
advantage of natural heat sources.
61

4.4.2. Material Properties
Through the ultimate analysis of the field samples it was shown that the carbon does in fact exist in a
30 (or more) to one carbon to nitrogen ratio. In fulfilling this criteria rice straw can serve as a
possible feedstock to biomethanation, but will need to be processed to a degree before it is ready to
be placed into a bioreactor. The rice straw should be ground into smaller particles; smaller particles
have increased active surface area that the microbes can use to digest the material. In addition to
this, larger particles can also cause clogging of the digester (Yadvika 2004). Given the high lignin
content present in rice straw, it is also advisable that the straw undergoes a degree of processing to
break down the lignin in order to encourage maximized gas production, but this step is not
absolutely necessary and can only stand to improve the quality of rice straw as a feedstock for
biomethanation. After digestion the partially digested and undigested materials that are remaining
after the gestation period can be used as compost and reincorporated after a maturation period into
the field as an organic fertilizer thereby reducing the net nutrient loss attributed to the removal of
the straw from the field (SPRERI 2006).
4.4.3. Current Experience
Biomethanation of rice straw exists presently in the research and development phase and there are
pilot reactors in India specializing in the digestion of solely rice straw (SPRERI 2006-‐2008). In
addition to these reactors, there are others in India, some of which are dedicated to rice straw
digestion as well as others that are researching the use of rice straw as a supplement to currently
utilized animal waste digesters (Ghosh and Bhattacharyya 1999, Somayaji and Khanna 2000). As the
projects are in the research and development phase, there is little information present as to the
efficiency of the systems, but the test reactors are showing promising results. The test reactors that
were discussed in the literature were shown to be producing 200 to 300 liters of biogas per kilogram
of digested solids (SPRERI 2006). Additionally, where powderized rice straw was being applied as a
supplement to currently existing reactors, it was shown that as the digester was supplemented with
rice straw from 0 to 100 percent of the solid mass, the daily biogas yield rose from 176 to 331 liters
of biogas per kilogram of total solids (Somayaji and Khanna 2000). Wheat straw, which was also
being tested, did not echo the pattern of rice straw and rather had a peak production at 40%
substitution. The decline of production at higher concentrations of wheat straw is thought be
attributable to the high, and consequently limiting, concentrations of nitrogen found in the wheat
straw (Somayaji and Khanna 2000). In addition to lacking efficiency data, there also are lacking cost
assessments of utilization of the technology in the field.
62

4.4.4. Applicability to Thailand
Biomethanation may prove to be an important technology for utilization of rice straw, particularly in
the Northeast of Thailand, due to its ability to exist in decentralized plants in locations where
biomass is readily available. These plants have been shown in pilot testing to be capable of
providing electrical power for lighting as well as cooking fuel in the smaller, decentralized plants
(Ahring 2003). This can be an important contribution to those smaller farmers by allowing them to
obtain a helpful utilization of the field residues to produce cooking fuel as well as to provide lighting
in the household. Biomethanation can possibly be suited for utilization in large scale, centralized
operations, and has been shown in Denmark and the United States to produce large volumes of
biogas (Ahring 2003), but these projects are currently using animal wastes and have not been proved
viable with the utilization of rice straw as a feedstock. Given the current experience with
biomethanation, it would seem that the utilization of this technology for the digestion of rice straw
would be best suited on a small-‐scale, particularly a household or farm specific basis.
4.4.5. Recommendations
Biomethanation has great promise for the small-‐scale applications for utilization of rice straw in
Thailand. Present research and development is showing that producing biogas through the digestion
of rice straw is a viable option especially on small-‐scale and localized projects (SPRERI 2006-‐2008).
These projects are require minimal alterations, especially while being run as batch operations, and
the required materials are simplistic. The requirements for biomethanation are a vessel in which the
digestion will occur as well as a culture of microbes to provide a starting population of methanogens
and the material to be digested, in this case being rice straw. The starting culture can be obtained
from a slurry of animal manure or partially digested material from a previously running
biomethanation plant. The biogas produced from the digestion of the rice straw can be used for
electrical power production in an internal combustion engine or as a cooking fuel. This can provide
an important contribution to the smaller farms by allowing the farmers to convert a waste product
into a fuel for cooking or to provide lighting in their household. Also, the partially digested material
that is removed from the digester upon completion of the digesting period can be used as compost
and after a maturation period the compost can be returned to the field as a nutrient supplement. In
this way biomethanation allows some of the nutriment in the straw to be returned to the field. This
technology is particularly well suited because it can be utilized on a small enough scale that it can be
performed at a house to house or farm to farm basis in order to provide a possible utilization for the
straw, and it is technically simple enough to be left, essentially without manipulation, for the
entirety of the gestation period during gas production. It poses a good utilization scheme also for
63

fields that pose difficulty for densification, specifically those fields which are hand harvested,
particularly because the technology does not require a densification process prior to material
utilization. Storage of the straw should not be of major concern as the exposure to the elements
may provide useful aerobic oxidation of compounds, such as lignin, in the rice straw that would
inhibit production of gas during biomethanation (Ghosh and Bhattacharyya 1999). A draw back to
the technology is the requirement for the material to be chopped in order to reduce the size of the
straw, a task which could feasibly performed by a conventional wood chipper.
Government initiatives to help farmers through education and grants could aid the implementation
of biomethanation projects by educating the farmers as to the merits and requirements of
biomethanation of rice straw as well as to provide start-‐up capital for the systems. This start up
capital could be used to purchase the required vessel or to purchase a machine to chop the straw to
a usable size. It seems that on the whole, biomethanation has significant possibility as a feasible
utilization scheme for those small-‐scale applications around Thailand as well as for areas in which
the grain is harvested by hand, despite the requirement for the straw to be processed in order to
reduce its size.
4.5. Hydrolysis
Hydrolysis is the process of breaking down the complex carbohydrates present in rice straw into
simple sugars. The major carbohydrates present are cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. The sugars
can then be fermented and distilled into ethanol, for use as fuel. There are three major technologies
for the hydrolysis of biomass: steam explosion, acid hydrolysis, and enzyme hydrolysis. In each case,
the rice straw must first be pulverized and mixed into a liquid slurry. (Forrest 1997) Essentially, each
technology is simply a different method of breaking down cellulose molecules into a simple sugar.
For acid hydrolysis, common acids used are sulfuric acid or nitric acid. A wide variety of enzymes can
be used in enzymatic hydrolysis, which is generally the more efficient method of hydrolysis. In this
case however, the rice straw must be pretreated in order to separate out cellulose and
hemicellulose. (Forrest 1997)
There has been much research, especially in the United States in California, regarding the industrial
conversion of biomass into fuel ethanol, however more needs to be done specifically regarding rice
straw. One study has found that on average 1 kg of rice straw will contain 390 g of cellulose and
thus can theoretically produce 283 mL of ethanol. However, the best yield achieved has been about
208 mL of ethanol, or 74% efficiency. (Karimi et al 2006)
64

It should also be noted that within the rice straw, different fractions have different levels and rates
of hydrolysis. Jin et al, 2006 found that the level of saccharification (breaking down of
carbohydrates) in each section of the rice straw was as follows: internode>node>leaf sheath>leaf
blade>panicle. This suggests that separating the rice straw into its fractions before hydrolysis could
improve results and increase ethanol production. However, the extra processing steps involved
would take time and energy, possible to the extent that the conversion is no longer economically or
energetically feasible.
Currently, many rice straw to ethanol technologies are still in the research and development phase.
Private companies are working on commercializing promising systems, such as the one mentioned
above, on a larger scale. However, similar to other rice straw conversion technologies, pretreatment
of the straw is often an expensive step which must be overcome. In this case, the success depends
on the prices of and market for ethanol, which fluctuates much more than the market for energy.
4.6. Summary of Technologies
Table 4.2. Summary of technologies.
5. Chemical Analysis of Rice Straw

5.1. Background
In terms of the chemical composition of rice straw, each component is significant for different
reasons, depending on the intended utilization and management of the straw. For example, if rice
straw is to be incorporated into the soil, the nitrogen content is of particular interest, as nitrogen is
65

one of the nutrients required for successful agriculture. Incorporating rice residues can affect how
much fertilizer is required, and can have a large impact on the nitrogen cycles in the soil (either
positive or negative depending on the specific method of incorporation). Similarly, the content of
nutrients such as carbon, phosphorous and potassium are also of interest regarding incorporation,
as they are large factors in the fertility of the soil as well. A study of rice straw from California gives
a basic elemental analysis of this biomass:
% H % C % O % N % S % K % P
5.5 36 38 0.6 0.1 1.5 0.1
Table 5.1. Elemental analysis of California rice straw (Forrest 1997)
In the case of rice straw burning, the above basic elemental analysis is of interest, as well as the
presence of any trace chemicals which can be released into the atmosphere as the biomass is
burned. A study in Spain discovered that the presence of V, Ni, and Zn in the atmosphere increased
greatly with the open burning of rice straw. Increasing at lower levels due to open burning were Cr,
Se, Cd, and Pb. (Viana et al, 2008). All of these compounds pose a threat to human health, and are
just an example of the impacts of open burning of rice straw.
Regarding the conversion of rice straw into energy, as is the focus of this paper, different
characteristics of rice straw are of varying importance depending on the conversion technology to be
used. For example, for hydrolysis and subsequent conversion into ethanol, the presence of
cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin are of primary interest. This is because the cellulose and
hemicellulose molecules are the compounds which are broken down into simple sugars for
fermentation. The amount of lignin present affects how easily hydrolysis occurs. On average, rice
straw (as well as other cereal straws) have approximately the following proportions of cellulose,
hemicellulose, and lignin:
% Cellulose % Hemicellulose % Lignin
30.4 32.3 8.6
Table 5.2. Structural properties of rice straw of interest regarding hydrolysis. (Lin et al 2006)
For the technologies focused on the most in the paper (combustion technologies), one of the main
parameters of interest is the carbon content. A higher carbon content is more desirable, and means
that more energy can be produced. Specifically, a high percentage of fixed carbon is beneficial. The
fixed carbon content is different from the total carbon content, as some of the carbon is volatile and
66

is lost before it can be efficiently utilized. Therefore, low volatile organic carbon content is also
desirable. In addition, the silica and ash content of rice straw are of particular interest regarding
combustion techniques. High ash content often creates problems with machinery, as it builds up
and must be routinely removed, adding time and expenses to any technology. Silica is one of the
causes of high ash content. It also can react with alkalines such as potassium present in the biomass
to create slag and clog up passages in the boiler, again adding time and expenses. Finally, silica is an
abrasive compound which necessitates more maintenance of machinery than might be necessary
with other fuel sources of lower silica content. Rice straw has a relatively high silica content, found
by the IRRI to be approximately 18%, while other analysis found the average to be between 9.0%
and 14.0 % (Mohdy et al 2008).
A proximate analysis found in the literature of rice residues from China compares some
characteristics of rice straw to bituminous coal, which is the fossil fuel having the most potential to
be replaced by straw. It is also compared to wheat straw, a similar cereal byproduct which is being
studied for many of the same applications as rice straw. The results are as follows:
% % Volatile Organic % Ash % Fixed Carbon

Moisture Carbon (VOC)
Rice Straw 8.11 61.1 15.25 15.54
Wheat Straw 8.63 63.96 12.45 14.96
Bituminous coal 2.83 28.33 20.08 49.08
Table 5.3. Proximate analysis of rice straw from China (Biomass and Energy 2004)
As can be seen from these values, rice straw and wheat straw are very similar in make, however,
coal has a much higher percentage of fixed carbon and a much lower percentage of VOCs. As
mentioned previously, this means that coal will be a much more efficient fuel source. The moisture
content is important to look at as well. For all combustion technologies, a low moisture content is
desirable. The moisture of rice straw as it is collected varies widely depending on how long it has
been left in the field, and what climate it has grown in. In wet areas, it may be necessary to store
the straw in a location where it can dry for a long period of time before utilization is possible. At
harvest, rice straw often has a moisture content of up to 60%, although it typically dries to about
10% shortly after. (Mohdy et al 2008)
67

Another important parameter when determining the quality of fuels is the calorific value. The
calorific value is usually given as either the higher heating value (HHV) or the lower heating value
(LHV). The HHV represents the total heat released during the combustion of a certain amount of
fuel, including any heat released in water vapor. The LHV is different in that it excludes the heat
released as water vapor, in that this heat is generally non-‐recoverable. In this way, the HHV is the
total theoretical energy which could be obtained through combustion of the fuel, or the fuel’s
energy potential. Literature values for the HHVs of different types of fossil fuels, as well as rice straw
are shown in Table 5.4:
Fuel HHV (kJ/kg)
Bituminous Coal 17,000-‐23,350
Coke 28,000-‐31,000
Lignite 16,300
Rice Straw 11,535
Table 5.4. Higher heating values of solid fossil fuels and rice straw. (IMTE AG 2005) (Garivait et al
2006)
As can be seen, rice straw has a much lower energy potential than solid fossil fuels, even those with
the least energy density. In addition, as can be seen from the proximate analysis, rice straw high
higher moisture content than coal, which means that even less of the potential heat will actually be
recoverable.
For the rice straw samples collected during the site visits, 3 types of analysis were performed. The
percentage of N, C, and H were determined through ultimate analysis, the intrinsic moisture
content, VOCs, ash content, and fixed carbon content were determined through proximate analysis,
and finally the calorific value was determined through bomb calorimetry. From the calorific values,
the higher heating values could also be determined. The goals of the lab analysis were to look for
any obvious trends or differences in the characteristics of the straw related to different growth
practices, species of rice, and location of plantations. Because there were relatively few samples
analyzed, more work has to be done in order to make any definitive statements regarding rice straw
in Thailand. The samples were used as a basic comparison to literature values found, and to locate
any large discrepancies which would affect potential utilization of the straw as a fuel source.
68

5.2. Methodology
For the rice straw samples collected during the site visits, 3 types of analysis were performed. The
percentage of N, C, and H were determined through ultimate analysis, the intrinsic moisture
content, VOCs, ash content, and fixed carbon content were determined through proximate analysis,
and finally the calorific value was determined through bomb calorimetry. From the calorific values,
the higher heating values could also be determined. The goals of the lab analysis were to look for
any obvious trends or differences in the characteristics of the straw related to different growth
practices, species of rice, and location of plantations. Because there were relatively few samples
analyzed, more work has to be done in order to make any definitive statements regarding rice straw
in Thailand. The samples were used as a basic comparison to literature values found, and to locate
any large discrepancies which would affect potential utilization of the straw as a fuel source.
For the proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and determination of calorific values, samples of rice
straw were first cut by hand and then ground into a fine dust of particle size 106 μm. It was found
that the most successful method of sample pretreatment was to cut the rice straw by hand using
scissors, and then process it in a blender until it reached a powdery consistency. This was then
passed through a screen of diameter 106 μm . The proximate analysis was done using a Pyris 1
thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) instrument from PerkinsElmer. The program used was as follows:
10 min. at 30 degrees C. 10 min. at 110 degrees C. 10min. at 900 degrees C. From the proximate
analysis, the moisture content, volatile organic carbons, ash content, and fixed carbon content were
determined.
The ultimate analysis was done using a FlashEA 1112 Series.
The calorific value was determined using a Leco AC-‐350 bomb calorimeter. From this the higher
heating values of the samples were determined.
To determine the in field moisture content of the rice straw and rice stubble samples collected, each
sample was heated in an oven at 105 Centigrade for a period of 24 hours.
69

5.3.Ultimate Analysis
The results from the ultimate analysis are shown in Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.1. Ultimate analysis for nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen of rice straw samples from 7 fields
in 5 provinces taken post harvest.
As can be seen from the graph, there was relatively little change in the composition of nitrogen,
carbon, and hydrogen across the different provinces visited. In general, the rice straw comprised of
30-‐35% carbon, 5% hydrogen, and about 1% nitrogen. These values are supported by the ultimate
analysis of rice straw found in the literature. The most variance was in the percentage of nitrogen,
which ranged from 0.35% in Chiang Mai 2 to 1.19% in Samut Sakorn B. It is likely that this is related
to how much time the rice straw spent sitting in the field and how wet conditions were. More
rainfall or irrigation could allow for more leaching of chemicals from the residue. This could be
helpful in utilizing rice straw for power production, as many of the compounds which lead to
slagging and ash production (alkalines for example) could partly be eliminated through such
leaching. The ultimate analysis results are shown below in table format. The low standard of
deviation between the three trials run show the results to be precise and consistent.
70

% N % C % H
Nakorn Sawan Average 0.66 30.24 4.08
SD 0.00 0.00282 0.00097
Chainat Average 1.00 35.61 4.88
SD 0.00005 0.00020 0.00143
Suphan Buri Average 0.63 36.20 4.90
SD 0.00010 0.00154 0.00020
Chiang Mai Average 0.59 37.36 5.20

Field 1
SD 0.00080 0.05210 0.00557
Chiang Mai Average 0.35 33.08 4.62

Field 2
SD 0.00030 0.00451 0.00039
Samut Sakorn Average 1.19 35.95 5.29

Field 1 (B)
SD 0.00006 0.00138 0.00145
Samut Sakorn Average 1.04 35.81 5.21

Field 2 (D)
SD 0.00020 0.00059 0.00069
Table 5.5. Ultimate analysis for nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen for 7 samples from 5 different
provinces. Percentages are averages of 3 trials.
In addition to the samples collected immediately post harvest, for the two fields in the Samut Sakorn
province samples were taken prior to burning as well. A period of about a month elapsed between
the post harvest samples and the pre-‐burn samples. This should show the effects, if any, of leaving
the rice straw in the field for an extended amount of time. The results for carbon and hydrogen
were inconclusive and showed little change, while the percentage of nitrogen actually increased,
albeit only a small amount, for both samples which were left in the field longer. This runs contrary
to what would be expected, as mentioned above. More samples should be analyzed to come to any
conclusions regarding this. However, considering that this change was small, there seemed to be no
71

significant differences in the elemental composition of rice straw after being left in the field. This
gives the farmer much flexibility regarding the collection of rice straw for possible utilization.
% N % C % H
B Post Harvest Average 1.19 35.95 5.29
SD 0.00006 0.00138 0.00145
B Pre-‐burn Average 1.35 33.58 4.89
SD 0.00036 0.00197 0.00166
D Post Harvest Average 1.04 35.81 5.21
SD 0.00020 0.00059 0.00069
D Pre-‐burn Average 1.11 35.93 5.21
SD 0.00053 0.00302 0.00133
Table 5.6. Ultimate analysis comparing samples left in field for different amounts of time from Samut
Sakorn province.
5.4. Proximate Analysis
For the proximate analysis, a sample graph from which the moisture, VOC, ash, and fixed carbon
contents were determined can be seen in Figure 5.2.
72

Figure 5.2. Proximate analysis for Nakorn Sawan rice straw sample.
In the graph above, the first drop in the sample weight represents the loss of moisture (from point A
to B). The second drop (B to C) represents the loss of the volatile organic carbons. The third drop (C
to D) represents the fixed carbon content. Any matter remaining at the end (point D) is the ash
content of the rice straw. Graphs for all of the samples as well as the equations used for the
calculations can be seen in detail in the appendix.
The results for the proximate analysis for all samples can be seen in Figure 5.3:
73

Figure 5.3. Proximate analysis for moisture, volatile organic carbon, ash, and fixed carbon for 7
samples from 5 fields.
As can be seen in the above graph, the proximate analysis is relatively similar for all fields visited.
Volatile organic carbons make up the vast majority of this biomass, typically around 70% with the
exception of the straw from Nakorn Sawan province (57% VOC). Following the VOCs, ash is typically
between 15 and 20% of the rice straw, again with the exception of the Nakorn Sawan sample
(31.84%). The fixed carbon varies from about 5 to 13%, and the moisture content is generally under
5%.
In terms of finding trends based on the results of this analysis, it is difficult without having more
samples and knowing more about the rice type and cultivation practices of each farm where the
samples are taken from. The high volatile organic carbon content of rice straw in general is
undesirable for power production, as is the high ash content. Of the samples analyzed, the Nakorn
Sawan sample had the highest % ash (31.84). This was a sample of the Chainat variety of rice.
However, the sample from Chainat was also the Chainat rice variety, and had a significantly lower
ash content, suggesting that the amount of ash is dependent on more than simply the species of
rice. The two samples with the highest fixed carbon content were from Suphan Buri and one of the
Chiang Mai fields. These represented different types of rice: pathumthani and sanpathong,
respectively. Again, there are no conclusive connections between the composition of the rice straw
and the specific variety of rice.
74

The two samples from Samut Sakorn province had higher moisture content than any of the other
samples. This is possibly because the samples were collected much earlier, and had more time after
oven drying to absorb moisture from the atmosphere. It is also possible that they simply came from
a wetter field and were exposed to more rain.
The differences in the composition of the two samples from Chiang Mai suggest that more samples
need to be taken in order to make any sound conclusions. Both of the fields visited in Chiang Mai
were the same variety of rice and had the same cultivation and harvesting practices. They were also
in close proximity to one another. However, the fixed carbon varied from 8.66% to 12.16%. The
other parameters were more similar. Because of time restraints, only one of the three samples
taken from each field was analyzed in the lab. Ideally, all of the samples collected would have been
analyzed. The results from the proximate analysis can be seen below in table format:
% Moisture % VOC % Ash % Fixed Carbon
Samut Sakorn B 4.54 71.99 17.60 5.87
Samut Sakorn D 3.85 74.16 17.01 4.98
Chainat 3.09 73.82 18.16 4.93
Nakorn Sawan 2.93 57.07 31.84 8.15
Suphan Buri 2.70 70.68 15.28 11.33
Chiang Mai 1 2.13 69.37 19.84 8.66
Chiang Mai 4 2.41 65.44 19.99 12.16
Table 5.7. Proximate analysis for moisture, volatile organic carbon, ash, and fixed carbon for 7
samples from 5 fields.
Similar to the ultimate analysis, the samples from Samut Sakorn taken post harvest and pre-‐burning
were analyzed. In both cases, the moisture increased slightly with time, suggesting an additional
rainfall or humid weather. The VOC’s decreased, ash increased, and the fixed carbon decreased.
While none of the changes were very dramatic, it is interesting to note that with time the ash
increased about 2 to 3%, while the fixed carbon decreased by about 1%. This suggests that in terms
of these parameters, collecting the rice straw immediately after harvest rather than letting it sit in
the field is most beneficial.
75

% Moisture % VOC % Ash % Fixed Carbon
B Post Harvest 4.54 71.99 17.60 5.87
B Pre-‐burn 4.90 70.33 19.93 4.84
D Post Harvest 3.85 74.16 17.01 4.98
D Pre-‐burn 4.26 70.98 20.97 3.79
Table 5.8. Proximate analysis comparing samples left in field for different amounts of time from
Samut Sakorn province.
5.5. Calorific Values
The calorific values found using the bomb calorimeter and the calculated HHV’s for the rice straw
samples are shown below:
Calorific Value (cal/g) HHV (kJ/kg) Rice Variety
Samut Sakorn B 3,508.9 14,701.46 no data
Samut Sakorn D 3,503.2 14,677.58 no data
Chainat 3,470.8 14,701.46 Chainat
Nakorn Sawan 2,791.0 11,693.59 Chainat
Suphan Buri 3,520.2 15,391.18 Pathumthani
Chiang Mai 1 3,164.1 13,257.02 Sunpathong
Chiang Mai 4 3,200.1 13,407.86 Sunpathong
Average 3,308.29 13,975.74 na
Table 5.9. Calorific values and higher heating values along with rice variety for 7 samples from 5
provinces.
76

The rice straw samples analyzed had an average higher heating value of 13,975 kJ/kg, which is higher
than the literature values found for rice straw (about 11,500 kJ/kg), however still lower than lignite
or bituminous coal. It would be useful to know the lower heating value (LHV) of rice straw, however
this would require ultimate analysis for the presence of oxygen in order to determine how much
water vapor is created during combustion. Given the time restraints, this was not possible.
However, a LHV can be estimated based on the HHV and the moisture content. For a moisture
content of about 7%, the LHV for rice straw was found in the literature to be 10,297 kJ/kg, which was
about 10% of the reported HHV. (Garivait et al 2006) Other literature values report the LHV for
biomass to be anywhere from 15% lower than the HHV (Sims 2002) to 6% lower than the HHV
(Hofstrand, 2007). The rice straw analyzed for this paper had on average a moisture content of only
about 3%, meaning that the LHV would be relatively closer to the HHV. Assuming a 6% loss, a rough
estimate for the average LHV for the rice straw samples analyzed would be 12,997.44 kJ/kg. This is
relatively close to a value cited in 2007 of 13,980 kJ/kg for the LHV of rice straw (Gadde et al 2007).
The higher heating values are also represented in graphical format below:
Higher Heating Value
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
HHV (kJ/kg)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Samut Samut Chainat Nakorn Suphan Chiang Chiang
Sakorn B Sakorn D Sawan Buri Mai 1 Mai 4
Province

Figure 5.4. Higher heating values of 7 samples from 5 provinces.
As can be seen from the table and graph above, there is some variance within the higher heating
values determined for each rice samples. The rice sample with the highest energy potential is from
the Suphan Buri province (15,391.18 kJ/kg). This is an example of the Pathumthani rice variety. As
this is the only sample of this type of rice, more analysis should be conducted to determine whether
or not this rice really does produce residue with higher energy content. The sample with the lowest
77

energy is from Nakorn Sawan province (11,693.59 kJ/kg) and is an example of the Chainat variety of
rice. However, the sample from Chainat is also the Chainat variety of rice, and has a much higher
calorific value. Therefore in this case it does not appear that the variety of rice has a strong
influence on the energy potential of the residues.
Overall, the chemical analysis preformed for this study for the most part supported values found in
the literature. There were no major discrepancies or differences related to the location or species of
rice which would greatly affect the use of rice straw for power production. It also does not appear
that there are any cultivation practices which could be utilized which would greatly increase or
decrease the energy potential of this residue.
6. Feasibility of Utilizing Rice Straw for Power Production
6.4. Collection Processes

Collection processes for rice straw are important criteria when considering the feasibility of off-‐field
utilization of the resource. Collection processes include all the post harvest operations that would
be necessitated for removal of the straw from the field; these include raking and swathing
operations, densification of the straw, road-‐siding of the bales, transportation of the straw, loading
and unloading operations, and on or off-‐site storage.

6.5. Harvest Processes

The operations following harvesting are dependent on the method by which the grain is harvested
from the field because the status and quantity of rice straw available after harvest depends upon the
harvesting method. Rice harvesting methods can be broken down into two main categories: manual
harvesting and mechanized harvesting. Manual harvesting is still relatively common in Thailand and
was the only method of harvesting seen in use during site visits in the Chiang Mai province. Manual
harvesting typically produces a much smaller amount of straw relative to the amount of stubble, but
this is heavily dependent on the height at which the stalk is cut during harvesting. Those farms that
were visited in the Chiang Mai province had straw to stubble ratios that were much lower than those
that were found at mechanically harvested plantations; the manually harvested fields had, on
average, 0.33 kilograms of straw per kilogram of stubble per square meter whereas in mechanically
harvested fields had an average ratio of 3.00 kilograms of straw per kilogram of stubble per square
meter. The difference may not be specifically derived from the method of harvesting since the rice
varieties in these samples were different, but it was also noted that the stubble heights in the
78

manually harvested fields were much larger than the stubble heights in those fields that were
mechanically harvested. The straw and grain are left to dry in the field for two to three days before
threshing and removal of the grain. It is common that the straw and grain will be gathered into
bundles so that the grain can be efficiently threshed from the straw (de Lucia and Assennato 1994).

Mechanized harvesting on the other hand uses a machine, either a combine harvester, side delivery
rake, or a binder to harvest the rice. A side delivery rake is typically is a machine which is used to cut
the rice at the stalk but simply to windrow the straw without removal of the grain. These devices
are typically accompanied by large amounts of manual labor which is required to gather and bind
the windrowed straw for threshing. A binder is a machine will both cut the rice as well as bind the
straw together in bundles as it passes through the field. The combine harvester is a machine that
cuts and threshes the grain from the straw as it passes through the field. As these machines move
through the field they simply discharge the straw into windrows after threshing. Due to the fact that
the rice panicle is not vertical at the time of harvesting, the machines must be set to cut the rice
much lower on the stalk than would be necessitated during manual harvesting in order to avoid
excessive loss of product, and therefore produce much more straw than manual harvesting methods
(de Lucia and Assennato 1994).

6.6. Processing Activities: Raking and Swathing

Processing activities for utilization of rice straw should begin as soon as possible after the harvest of
the grain so as to avoid the risk of increasing the moisture of the straw or the field which would
prevent effective gathering (Forrest et al 1997). These processing activities typically begin with
densification of the rice straw, either by cubing or baling, but densification is, in some cases, is
preceded by processes of raking, swathing, or both. Raking is utilized to windrow straw that has
been spread across the field during harvest to facilitate drying, or when the windrow that was
created during grain harvest is not drying fast enough for baling processes to proceed. It is a task
typically associated with high straw yielding resultant from the stem being cut closely to the ground
(Jenkins et al 2000). Whereas swathing is performed to increase straw yields when harvesting has
left large degrees of stubble in the field (typically greater than 25 centimeters). This process is best
performed if the machine responsible for swathing the field moves in the opposite direction of the
combine thereby achieving the highest straw yield in any given area, yet these operations have been
shown to increase soil content in the straw which decreases the quality of straw (Jenkins et al 2000).
As previously mentioned, these procedures can be performed independently or both can be
79

performed; when both tasks are performed, the swathing operation is typically performed to
increase straw yields and encourage the drying of wet soil (Bakker-‐Dhaliwal et al 1999). Additionally,
if raking and swathing are both being performed on a given field, swathing will be performed first
followed by raking to condense the swathed straw into windrows for collection.

6.7. Processing Activities: Densification and Road-‐Siding

If raking and swathing are not required, or after they have been performed, densification can
proceed either by baling or cubing of the straw. Cubing is the process by which straw is gathered,
compacted, and bound typically using a chemical binding agent. Field cubing, which as the name
suggested is performed in the field, requires that the straw contain twelve or less percent moisture,
the windrows are limited to about two kilograms of straw per meter of windrow length, and a
suitable bonding agent is uniformly applied to the straw in the field (Kadam et al 2000). Stationary
cubing operations are off-‐site and require hauling of combine harvested straw to a central location,
grinding of the straw, cubing, cooling, and storing of the cubes. Additionally, if the end use of the
straw is as animal fodder, there is the opportunity to add feed supplements to the straw after
grinding so as to ensure uniform mixing of the supplement within the fodder prior to cubing. This
system of cubing allows production to continue during the winter, effectively providing more
flexibility than those scenarios where cubing must be performed at the time of harvest. However,
this system requires storage of the straw at the cubing site, but because combine harvested straw is
very bulky and must be dry, the straw must remain covered during storage, which thereby reduces
the economic viability of the process by increasing storage costs (Kadam et al 2000). Another cubing
scheme involves cutting of the rice in the field and transport of the cut rice, straw and grain, to a
central processing location where the grain and straw are separated and the grain and straw are
processed, with the straw being processed into cubes. This scenario requires a complete shift in the
way that most farmers harvest their fields and therefore would require a large shift in production as
well as new equipment and facilities (Kadam et al 2000).

Baling is the cheaper and more commonly practiced of the aforementioned collection schemes.
Baling is performed when the straw has attained a moisture content of less than twenty five
percent; the straw moisture content has a large effect on whether or not the straw feeds correctly
into the baler, and wetter straw will not feed properly. Typically if the soil moisture is greater than
thirty one percent the field is considered too wet to bale; if the soil is too wet, the machines for
baling will not be able to navigate the field or will cause deep rutting during the baling operations
80

(Kadam et al 2000). Baling operations typically refer to common rectangular bales held with two or
three wires, although there are baling operations that produce large cylindrical bales, but these are
far from ideal given that their large size makes them difficult to transport to end users. There are
two types of rectangular bales, large bales and small bales. Large bales can be further subdivided
into two categories, specifically Freeman and Hesston variety bales. Hesston variety bales are the
largest with dimensions of 1.2 x 1.2 x 2.4 meters, volumetrically equal to 3.5 cubic meters, and they
have an average weight of 600 kilograms, giving them a density of approximately 171 kilograms per
cubic meter (Jenkins et al 2000). Freeman variety bales are marginally smaller than the Hesston
variety and have dimensions of 0.9 x 1.2 x 2.4 meters, volumetrically equal to 2.6 cubic meters, and
they typically weigh around 450 kilograms, giving them a density of approximately 173 kilograms per
cubic meter (Jenkins et al 2000). Small bales are much smaller than their larger counterparts and
have dimensions of 0.4 x 0.6 x 1.2 meters, volumetrically equivalent to 0.3 cubic meters, and they
typically weigh around 32 kilograms, giving them a density of approximately 106 kilograms per cubic
meter (Jenkins et al 2000). Regardless of the type of bale produced, it is typically left in the field for
later collection and transport. Following baling is the process of road-‐siding which involves, as the
name would suggest, simply moving the bales from their location in the field to a location along the
road for loading and transport. There is also the option, if the bales are not being removed from
site, to take the bales to an on-‐site storage area where the bales await further processing and
utilization. Given the short transit distance if the bales are being utilized on site, the transportation
cost would simply be limited to the cost of removal of the processed straw from the field. Table 6.1
shows a summary of the densification methods for rice straw and the various requirements of these
specific methods.

Densification Type Produced Material Straw Requirements
Field
Density (kg/m3) Requirements
Large Bales (Hesston 171 Less than 25% Less than 31% soil
Variety) moisture content moisture
Large Bales (Freeman 173 Less than 25% Less than 31% soil
Variety) moisture content moisture
Small Bales 106 Less than 25% Less than 31% soil
moisture content moisture
Cube 340-‐420 Less than 12% Straw windrowed
moisture content with 2kg or less
per meter
Table 6.1. Summary of densification types with their produced material density as well as straw and
field requirements (Jenkins et al 2000, Kadam et al 2000).

81

6.8. Transportation

It is at this point where the straw, after it has undergone densification and road-‐siding, is loaded
onto a vehicle for transport to the end use facility provided this facility is separate from the harvest
location. Transportation of bales is typically though large trucks which can carry 460 to 512 small
bales, 42 to 48 Freeman variety large bales, or 28 to 30 Hesston variety large bales (Jenkins et al
2000). The typical payload is around 19 to 20 metric tons per truck, limited not by weight but rather
by load size restrictions (Jenkins et al 2000). If the end use facility needs large quantities of straw, as
would be characteristic of most utilization schemes, a large amount of transit would be required,
given that each truck on average will transport 19 metric tons. This transit system would require a
large volume of trucks available to the transport of straw from the farm to end use facilities;
therefore it would be advantageous to observe the timing of other transportation intensive harvests
and try to coordinate the transit of straw with a period where trucks are readily available.
Transportation costs will be relatively variable and will depend on many factors including volume of
straw at collection locations, transportation distance, and road type. The cost of transportation will
predictably increase along with the transportation distance, but an important factor when
considering Thai utilization of rice straw would be the volume of straw at various collection
locations. If only small volumes of straw can be collected at each of many locations, the cost of
loading and transportation will be much higher than if the straw was all concentrated at one
centralized location. This becomes particularly important in areas of Thailand such as the Northeast
where the rice farms are much smaller thereby providing a limit on how much straw can be collected
at any one location; collecting straw in areas where this is the case will incur much larger
transportation distances and consequently transportation costs. The dependence of transportation
costs on road class is simply due to the fact that trucks can move more quickly and fuel efficiently on
better maintained, higher class highways, but the nature of rice straw collection on the whole will
make traveling on lower class highways a must (Jenkins et al 2000). The economic and energetic
merits of road choice for transportation routes is heavily dependant on the location from which the
rice straw is being collected, this is assuming that most rice fields will be away from major highways.
This assumption was confirmed during site visits where many of the observed and surveyed fields
across many provinces were relatively far from a major highway, with the exception of the survey
performed in Nakorn Sawan province which was located very near a six lane highway.

82

6.9. Storage Considerations

Once the straw arrives on site, storage considerations need to be made in order to preserve the
quality of the fuel for end utilization. There are various varieties of storage of straw bales in use and
these include uncovered stacks, tarp covered stacks, wrapped bales, and permanent storage
structures. Uncovered stacks are simply stacks of baled straw, exactly as the name would suggest.
These stacks of straw have upper limits in their size for reasons of spontaneous combustion dangers,
and these structures incur losses of material in the top layer and sides of the stack due to rain
damage (Huisman et al 2002). Tarp covered stacks are stacks of straw that are similar to uncovered
stacks, and as the name would imply, are covered with a tarp over the top portion of the material.
Additionally, some tarp covered stacks have a lining of plastic below them between the bottom of
the pile and the ground to prevent material loss on the lower layers. There are advantageous as
they are as mobile as uncovered stacks, that is to say that they are not permanent structures, and
they also reduce material loss through the protection of the straw from the elements, particularly
from the rain (Huisman et al 2002). Wrapped bales come in two varieties, individually wrapped
bales and tube-‐wrapped bales. Individually wrapped bales are wrapped, individually, in plastic by a
wrapping machine as the baler moves through the field and these can be stacked, similarly to those
in the uncovered stacks. Individual wrapping can also be performed after baling yet this would
require collection of the bales and wrapping thereby increasing the processing costs. Tube wrapping
systems make long tubes of straw which is wrapped in plastic, but these cannot be stacked more
than two high and are typically laid on untreated ground for storage. It is assumed that these
wrapped bales will also be susceptible to material loss depending on the location in which they are
deposited (susceptibility to standing water formation, etc) and whether or not non-‐elemental
disturbances such as birds or rodents damage the straw (Huisman et al 2002). More permanent
storage structures are also utilized and can be divided into categories of structures with sides and
those without. Structures without sides can be exemplified by pole barns which are structures built
with tall poles supporting a roof covering over a typically dirt floor. Such structures have high straw
capacity and significantly reduce the amount of material lost given the nature of the covering
(Huisman et al 2002). Structures with sides can be exemplified by metal buildings; these structures
can be built larger than pole barns and are built with sides as well as roofs to further protect from
material loss. The flooring of the structure can be dirt, gravel, or concrete depending on particular
location specifications. It is also notable that all storage methods can be utilized for both small and
large bales, but storage capacities vary between storage systems and between bale sizes (Huisman
et al 2002).
83

The economics of rice straw storage are affected by the price of the storage system as well as the
sell value of straw after storage. As would be expected, straw stored in more permanent structures
tend to have a higher selling value due to increased straw quality, especially after long storage
periods of a year or longer (Huisman et al 2002). Economic advantages are held by the more
permanent structures over uncovered or tarp covered stacks, but these are dependant on the
possible salvage value of the structure after it is used. Quantification of straw losses from each of
the methods is difficult but it is certainly safe to assume that more permanent structures will incur
less material lost than those bales that are left uncovered or tarp covered. It could be that if the
permanent structures maintain high straw quality and allow for year-‐long distribution of straw, they
could possibly offset the costs of storage altogether and yield a net profit for the distribution of
straw (Huisman et al 2002).

6.10. Energetic Feasibility Analysis
Based upon literature values as well as some of those determined from analysis of gathered
samples, a preliminary energetic and economic analysis of the utilization of rice straw for power
production was performed. The energetic analysis was based upon straw being harvested in-‐field,
baled, and transported by large truck to an end use facility. The energy requirement for baling was
based upon the fuel consumption of the vehicle, in liters of diesel fuel, per hectare baled (Jenkins et
al 2000). This necessitated the area of land from which the straw would be harvested; this value was
obtained by extrapolating the average straw mass per square meter that was determined during
field surveys to determine the number of hectares that would be required to supply an average
truck load of straw. The average straw mass per square meter was taken to be 1.21 kilograms per
square meter and extrapolation of this value determined a straw yield of 6050 kilograms of straw
per hectare. Using this value, it was determined that 2.98 hectares would need to be harvested to
supply 18 metric tons of straw, which was determined to be an average load of straw that could be
transported by heavy-‐duty truck (Jenkins et al 2000). Energy requirements of the transportation of
the straw was determined by using literature values for the fuel efficiency of heavy-‐duty diesel
trucks as well as it was assumed that a variable amount of straw would be lost during transit, varying
between 5 and 10 percent (Suramaythangkoor and Gheewala 2008). The transit distance was varied
between 5 and 1500 kilometers in order to determine a possible transportation distance at which
the utilization would no longer by energetically feasible. The energetic value of rice straw was taken
from the average higher heating value determined from bomb calorimetric analysis of field samples.
84

This higher heating value was reduced by a recovery efficiency term that was varied between 5 and
100 percent; this term was meant to display the effects of the efficiency of end use schemes.
6.10.1. Energetic Feasibility Analysis Results
The end result of the energetic analysis was that it is energetically feasible at all distances between 5
and 1500 kilometers with all tested recovery efficiencies. The recovery efficiency of the system was
shown to have the largest effect on the system, which is intuitive given the large volume of rice
straw arriving at the end use facility despite included material losses in transit. Figure 6.1. shows
the energy balance for the collection and transportation of rice straw over increasing transportation
distance.
Figure 6.1. The net energy balance for rice straw utilization based on transportation distance given
10% material loss during transportation and 35% recovery efficiency.
Albeit this is a basic analysis of the energetic requirements of harvesting of rice straw, it covers the
most energetically intensive processes inherent in the gathering of rice straw, specifically baling and
transportation. The data used herein are based on Thai data, with the exception of the data as to
fuel economy of the heavy duty truck as well as the fuel consumption of the baling machinery, and
therefore is applicable to Thai rice straw collection and utilization. This is assuming that the data
that was gathered from the field, as to mass of straw per square meter, as well as analysis of the
samples, specifically as it relates to the higher heating value, is well representative of the system.
Additionally, it also assumes that the trucks used in Thailand and the machinery that will be used in
85

the field will have similar fuel economies to those that are presented in the literature from the
United States.
6.11. Economic Feasibility Analysis
This analysis would suggest that the restriction to rice straw utilization is not due to energetic
limitations, but rather economic barriers, therefore an economic analysis was also performed. The
economic analysis included some of the same factors included in the energetic analysis; the
transported mass of straw was the same, 18 metric tons with 5 to 10 percent material loss in transit,
as well as the fuel economy data. Processes that were contained in the economic analysis included
market price of straw (USD per kilogram), baling costs (USD per metric ton of straw), road-‐siding
(USD per metric ton of straw), loading and unloading (USD per metric ton of straw), transportation
processes, and government subsidies (USD per ton of straw) (Jenkins et al 2000, Huai et al 2006).
The economics of transportation were calculated in two ways, one used the fuel economy of the
truck and the market price of diesel fuel (USD per liter) to calculate the economic costs of
transportation, and the other used the method utilized by McCarl et al (2000) which calculated the
hauling cost per ton as:
Hong (2007) used the formula as well and it was the data utilized in this paper that was cited for
values of the fixed load cost (90 USD) and the cost per mile (2.2 USD per mile which was converted
to 1.36 USD per kilometer). The market value for rice straw in Thailand could not be reliably
obtained so a value from the United States was utilized (Jenkins et al 2000). Information for the
economics of baling, road-‐siding, and loading and unloading of rice straw could also not be reliably
obtained for Thailand possibly due to a lack of established operations, and therefore data from the
United States was used.
6.11.1. Economic Feasibility Analysis Results
The economic feasibility analysis shows rice straw collection and utilization to be not economically
feasible beyond a variety of distances depending upon the variation of the parameters. The data
seemed most sensitive to changes in the market price of straw, but the effect of changes to the
market price could be offset by variations in the applied government subsidies. In the absence of
government subsidies and with a market price set at 25 USD per metric ton (Jenkins et al 2000),
utilization of rice straw is no longer economically feasibility, that is to say the economic balance
becomes negative, at a transportation distance between 90 and 95 kilometers for the calculation
86

based on fuel economy and fuel price, and the literature formula showed that no distance for
transportation provided a positive economic balance. Figure 6.2. shows the trends in the economic
balance for the collection and transportation of rice straw with increasing transportation distances.
Figure 6.2. Economic balance for rice straw utilization based on transportation distance where the
material loss in transit was 10%, the economic value of the straw was 25 USD per metric ton, and
there were no government subsidies applied. In the chart, “Standard calculation” refers to the
calculation based on fuel economy and diesel market price.
If the market value falls to 20 USD per metric ton, but government subsidies rise to 2 USD per metric
ton in order soften the effect, it is observed that the utilization of rice straw is not economically
feasibility at any distance. From the analysis it is shown that market price for rice straw can not fall
below 24 USD per metric ton, including any applied government subsidies, in order for the utilization
of rice straw to be feasible at any transportation distance, this is assuming that all other parameters
are not varied. It is obvious that at present, the economics of rice straw utilization pose a significant
barrier the possible consumers or rice straw.
6.12. Economic Assessment Based on End User
This economic analysis is performed assuming there is a group who is responsible for collecting the
rice straw from the farmer and distributing it to the end users, therefore incurring the economic
costs, but it is not analyzed how much the group will pay the farmers for the rice straw collected,
rather only the price of rice straw paid by the consumer. This is to say that the economic costs
incurred are those costs associated with bringing the straw to market and the economic benefits
gained are those associated with the sale of the product at market; it is not analyzed how these
87

economic costs and benefits are distributed. If the farmer can sell his or her straw for the market
price of 25 USD per ton and is responsible for simply baling his or her straw and road-‐siding the
straw that has been baled, the farmer can profit 4.59 USD per ton of straw baled and road-‐sided.
This assumes that the end user will be paying the farmer the market price per ton as well as paying
the price of loading and unloading the straw and the price of its transportation. In this system the
end user will need to obtain between 28.38 USD (5 kilometer transportation distance) and 31.85
USD (250 kilometer transportation distance) per ton in order for the system to be economically
feasible for the end user. These figures of raw material costs for rice straw falling between 28 and
32 USD per ton coincides well with the figure for rice straw price determined during a site visit to
Siam Cement Group, hereafter SCG. SCG quoted a price between 1,000 and 1,200 THB per ton of
rice straw including transit to the facility, this converts to a price of 28 to 34 USD per ton of rice
straw. This shows that the figures that were used for the market price of rice straw and
transportation costs are confirmed by observations made in Thailand, specifically as they pertain to
the end user SCG.
If the end user is producing electrical energy with the delivered rice straw, and can obtain 35 percent
energy recovery from the fuel, this would equal to 1,360.14 kilowatt hours of electrical energy
available for sale to the grid. At an average energy selling price in Thailand of 2.37 THB per kilowatt
hour (0.07 USD) (EGAT 2007) the economic return on a produced 1,360.14 kWh, assuming 6.6
percent transmission loss (Limpasuwan et al 2004), would be 108.89 USD. This is enough for the
company to profit considerably from the use of the straw as fuel, but this profit may be dwarfed by
the profit available using cheaper sources of energy like lignite, especially given inherent limitations
of rice straw. This calculation does not factor in the need to modify the power system to accept rice
straw as a fuel and any costs associated with these modifications, as well as any costs incurred in
processing the straw to produce a suitable fuel for the given application. It was estimated by SCG
that processing and system modifications for the utilization of rice straw in their Saraburi facility cost
approximately 1,400 THB per ton of rice straw used; this includes labor, electricity, and
maintenance. Provided this is approximately representative of processing costs, this would make
the profit for the end user in the discussed scenario approximately 39 USD per ton of rice straw
utilized. This is still no doubt a generous estimate of profit seeing as the calculations only factor in
the market price of the fuel, transportation costs of the fuel, operating costs (labor, electricity, and
maintenance), energy recovery efficiency in utilization, transmission efficiency of the produced
electricity, and average sale price of electricity sold to the grid. Despite the inherent limitations in
the data, it provides a reasonable estimate of the possible economic benefits that could be derived
in the utilization of rice straw as a fuel for the production of electricity for sale to the grid.
88

6.13. Economics of On-‐Site Utilization
Another scenario that exists involves the farmer utilizing the straw for localized electricity
production. A possible technology for the fuel production would be biomethanation, which has
probable applications for small-‐scale, localized straw utilization. Biomethanation of pure rice straw
has been shown to produce 200 to 300 liters of biogas per kilogram of digested solids (SPRERI 2006),
where the produced biogas has a calorific value of 21.6 to 23.4 megajoules per cubic meter
(Angelidaki et al 2003). Taking average gas production to be .25 cubic meters of biogas per kilogram
of digested solids, each kilogram of straw has the ability to produce 5.6 megajoules of energy,
assuming an average calorific value of 22.5 megajoules per cubic meter of produced biogas. If the
digester used has a 50 kilogram capacity and requires thirty days of digestion in order to complete
the degradation of the material, the farmer could feasibly produce 12.5 cubic meters of gas with an
approximate total calorific value of 281 megajoules. Assuming this can be converted to electrical
energy with an efficiency to of 50 percent, then there is an available 39 kilowatt-‐hours of electricity
available from the produced gas; enough electrical energy to power five, fifteen watt compact
fluorescent light bulbs for approximately 520 hours. The combustion of biogas should have a much
higher efficiency than the combustion of biomass itself, but in this case is the conversion efficiency
includes the capture and combustion of the gas. Therefore, because it is assumed that some gas will
be lost to the environment during capture, the overall efficiency of energy collection from the
produced gas can assumed to be comparable, but still a little better that the direct combustion of
biomass. If this energy production is extrapolated to an entire harvested ton of biomass, this could
save the farmer 2340 THB on electricity per ton of rice straw, given the electricity cost of 3 THB per
kilowatt-‐hour (EGAT 2007). Also, if harvesting of this rice straw was performed by mechanized
baling and the transportation of the bale can be considered comparable to road-‐siding, this action
could save the farmer approximately 49 USD on electricity costs per ton of rice straw digested. This
result also has its limitations; the digester can only accept 50 kilograms of straw per thirty day cycle,
therefore digesting a ton of rice straw would require nearly twenty months of constant digestion.
Thus the savings on electricity would be spread across the twenty months required to produce the
gas, therefore translating to a savings of approximately 2 USD per thirty day digestion period. This
calculation does not factor in the cost of maintenance of the digester, which is presently unknown
given the state of utilization of the technology, or the cost of processing the straw to make it
suitable for utilization in the digester. Again, despite the limitations in the calculations, these serve
as an indication of the possible economic implications of small scale utilization of rice straw.
89

6.14. Conclusions
Obviously these results are limited in their application to the Thai system seeing as the data as to the
economics of rice straw collection were taken from the United States. These results are to simply
serve as a preliminary indication of the economic costs and benefits of the distribution and
consumption of rice straw, and the economics of every individual situation will have different
constraints and will have inherently different results than the generalized calculations made above.
Specific data for Thailand was limited or not present, but as the utilization of rice straw increases it is
possible that these economic analyses could be directly applied to Thailand using Thai economic
data as it becomes available. As previously mentioned, the data do confirm the figures that were
obtained on a site visit to SCG in Saraburi, but they may not necessarily reflect the trends across the
entirety of Thailand.
7. Recommendations

Collection and transportation of Thai rice straw should be focused around large, rectangular baling
and road-‐siding for heavy truck transport to the end use facility. As discussed during a site visit to
the Pratumthani Thai Rice Foundation, Thai farmers are highly concerned with quickly being able to
move from one rice harvest to the next rice harvest, and for this reason burning the straw in the
field represents the easiest option for those farmers. Delaying harvest and removal of the straw
from the field is not an ideal scenario and it can be assumed that this will not be well received by the
farmers, because a delay in straw removal consequently delays their ability to begin preparing the
land for the next rice crop. Therefore the additional time requirements to rake and swath a field
would not be ideal, not to mention the additional incurred economic costs of the processes. These
processes do increase the straw yield from a given field as well as to facilitate drying of the straw
prior to baling, but the extra required time and economic burdens may not prove sustainable for the
Thai system.

In so far as removal of the straw from the field, baling should proceed as soon after the grain harvest
as possible, and the straw should be road-‐sided soon after baling as well so to leave the field clear
for preparation for the next crop. Baling is suggested given the lower economic cost of baling as well
as the current availability of baling machines in many provinces in Thailand (Suramaythangkoor and
Gheewala 2008). As the utilization of rice straw increases there will be a corresponding increase in
the availability of baling machinery, and in acquiring this machinery it might be viable to create
harvest communities in which there are pieces of community equipment, in this case baling
90

equipment. If the equipment was cooperatively purchased and owned by the community it could
reduce the overall individual economic expenditure in baling the straw as the community would only
have to pay costs for maintaining and refueling the machinery rather than having to pay an outside
baling company to perform the task. The functionality of this community structure is not yet known,
but it was mentioned during a site visit to the Chainat province that there was a trial of a similar
structure developed for the harvesting of grain. In this structure the community was provided with a
combine harvester, but the plan failed due to a lack of maintenance of the machinery due primarily
to the farmers lacking the feeling of ownership and responsibility for the equipment. Ideally this
would be avoided if the community was responsible for obtaining the equipment themselves; in that
case the farmers would feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the upkeep of the
equipment.

All in-‐field processes will depend on the condition of the field and the straw as mentioned above,
but the hope is that the field will be dry enough when allowing the mechanized harvesting of the
grain to allow also for the bailing of the straw. Those crops that are harvested during the dry season
are less susceptible to rainfall delaying the harvest of the straw, specifically major rice which is
harvested in November or December in the North, Central, and Northeast regions of Thailand and
May in the South of Thailand. Those harvests that occur during the rainy season, specifically second
rice which is typically harvested around June in the North, Central, and Northeast regions of Thailand
and September in the South, albeit second rice is rarely planted in the Southern region, are more
susceptible to delays in straw harvesting due to wetness of the field and straw, and this will have to
be considered when developing a collection plan for these particular straw harvests so as to
minimize the time loss as well as to minimize field damage due to rutting caused by equipment
running on wet ground.

Transportation of the straw from the field is a situation that needs to be analyzed carefully
depending on each situation. Naturally, the transportation of the straw from the field will be
performed by heavy-‐duty trucks, but these transportation plans need to be analyzed carefully in
order to maintain a positive economic balance for the transportation of the straw. From the
economic analyses that were performed, it was seen that given the conditions supplied in the
literature the maximum economically viable transportation distance fell approximately at 95
kilometers of total transportation distance. This transportation distance includes all the distance
covered by the trucks collecting the straw. This is to say that if the truck is unable to obtain a
complete load at one farm and needs to move to another farm, the distance traversed between the
91

farms during the collection process is included in the total transport distance. This will reduce the
distance that the facility can be located away from the collection point. It is for this reason that it is
not viable to have collection schemes in places where the rice straw is decentralized and located at
smaller farms. It would require incurring significantly larger transportation costs in order to gather
small volumes of straw from a large number of farms, which from the point of view of economics, is
not a viable solution to the problem. In the cases where the rice straw is located in a more
centralized fashion with larger farms located in closer proximity to one another, collection would be
much more feasible because it would be able to gather a large amount of straw in a smaller area,
therefore making it more economically feasible to travel further with the straw. The transportation
plans that are created for the movement of straw from the field to the end user need to be carefully
constructed in order to properly assess the transportation distance that would be traversed in
moving the required amount of straw to its respective end use location. In addition to this, the
transportation of the harvested straw will require a large amount of available trucks. For example,
in order to gather just half of the straw that was calculated as available in the central region of
Thailand it will require more then 77,000 18-‐ton truck loads annually. This is similar in other regions,
collection of half the straw available in the northern region of Thailand would require over 18,000
truck loads and the northeastern region of Thailand would require over 24,000 truck loads. In order
to annually perform these transportation processes on a large scale, there will need to be a massive
amount of available trucks. It would be ideal if the harvest of rice straw was performed at times
when there were large amounts of unused trucks available. Such periods would occur at times that
other major, large-‐scale crop harvests were not occurring, and these periods would provide an ideal
source for usable trucks for the harvest of rice straw.

These processes apply to those fields that are mechanically harvested and the straw is left,
windrowed in the field. On the other hand, hand harvested fields will pose a more difficult task for
straw harvest. It makes mechanized baling difficult given that the straw is removed from the field in
bundles in order to facilitate the threshing of the grain from the straw. These bundles could feasibly
be hand-‐fed into a stationary cubing machine, but the economic and labor costs of hand-‐feeding a
stationary cubing machine may prove detrimental to the feasibility of this collection scheme. At the
end user, storage would be best accomplished by a permanent structure such as the
aforementioned pole barn or metal building. These options provide better straw quality over longer
periods, which is ideal for year-‐long straw storage and use especially in scenarios of high straw
demand. Economically, the more permanent storage options are more economically viable given
that the straw value is higher in permanent storage than in uncovered or tarp-‐covered storage
92

options, and also assuming a reasonable salvage value of the structure at the end of its lifetime
(Huisman et al 2002).
8. Conclusions
Off-‐field utilization options for rice straw are currently being examined across the globe in the effort
to develop a way to quell open burning of the residue in the field. As one of the world’s major rice
producing countries, it is especially important for Thailand to consider alternate applications for this
residue; one such application is the utilization of rice straw for power production. In order to
consider the feasibility of rice straw utilization for power production in Thailand, many aspects of the
rice straw collection and utilization structure were examined. The aspects that were examined
included rice straw availability, rice straw physical and chemical composition, rice straw collection
and transportation processes, power production technologies for rice straw, as well as the economic
and energetic feasibility of rice straw utilization.
From the analyses performed, rice straw utilization for power production is feasible for Thailand, but
with limitations. The utilization of rice straw for power production is most feasible when it is
performed on a small-‐scale, while utilization on a large, country-‐wide scale is not feasible. The
issues with utilizing rice straw are encountered when collection of this available rice straw at small,
decentralized farms is considered. In order to obtain a large amount of straw, one would have to
collect straw from many different fields and given the low transportation distance at which rice
straw collection and transportation becomes not economically viable, approximately 90 kilometers,
it is difficult to imagine gathering a substantial amount of rice straw and transporting it any
considerable distance. It is for this reason that small, decentralized options for power production
are more feasible in most locations of Thailand. Given the straw availability data that is accessible, it
is very difficult to ascertain where there are large centralized rice fields and where the rice fields are
distanced from one another. More spatially resolute data would afford a better indication of which
regions would be feasible for rice straw collection and larger-‐scale usage, particularly locations of
centralized, large scale rice production, and which areas would be more fit for small scale utilization,
particularly areas which have decentralized, small rice fields. Simply taking the observations in the
field, it seems that fields in central Thailand were more centralized and larger (as well as located
near larger roads), whereas the fields in northern Thailand were more spread out and on smaller
roads. It would follow that if the central region is, in fact, characterized by larger, more centralized
fields, that this region would be the one most suited for large-‐scale utilization of rice straw. The
centralized nature of the fields would make collection and transportation more viable and the straw
could be transported further within the developed economic constraints. The converse is true in the
northern and northeastern region where the farms are more decentralized and the straw is often
93

hand harvested. In these fields it would be more viable to focus on small-‐scale utilization schemes in
order to provide electricity for a single farm or a small community, rather than for sale to the grid.
The technology most apt for larger utilization schemes would be biomass co-‐firing power plants.
This technology fits this application best because it is the most mature of the available technologies
and it does not require a steady, year-‐long supply of rice straw in order to maintain electricity
production. This latter point is of importance because it reduces the reliance of the plant on the rice
straw, which allows for inevitable collapses in supply of rice straw to the plant. On the small-‐scale,
biomethanation is the technology with the most promise. It allows for batch production to proceed
whenever the feedstock is available. Additionally, this technology does not require densification of
the straw which makes it well suited for smaller fields in which the grain is harvested by hand. These
biomethanation units could produce enough gas to effectively be used as cooking fuel or converted
to electricity to household use.
Further research should be directed towards maturation of the small-‐scale technologies, particularly
biomethanation. Given the research performed herein, the development of further large scale
technologies is not advisable given the limited applications of large-‐scale rice straw-‐based power
production. Additional research efforts should be applied in improving the spatial resolution of rice
field locations which will allow for more complete assertions to be made as to what locations have
the ability to support a rice straw collection framework. This spatially resolute data will also prove
helpful to those end users that wish to use rice straw commercially; they will be able to select
locations that offer a large and reliable supply of the feedstock for their process, be it power
production or other off-‐field utilizations.

94

Appendix A. Trip Data
95

96

97

Appendix B. Total amount of rice straw produced and burned in each province and region in Thailand in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2006.
Burned Burned Burned Burned

Province 1995 Total RS 2000 Total RS 2005 Total RS 2006 Total RS
RS RS RS RS
National 22,015,4 24,933,4 3,080,2 25,843,8 29,200,8 3,818,4 30,291,8 34,145,6 4,525,0 29,432,2 33,210,5 4,319,4
Total 81 00 69 33 35 87 70 51 09 08 18 49
5,857,28 6,331,82 424,87 7,615,10 8,232,05 590,39 8,993,15 9,721,75 699,59 8,616,45 9,314,53 661,28
North
9 9 0 1 4 5 6 5 5 5 4 9
8,587,02 10,581,7 712,44 9,589,71 11,817,4 805,48 10,761,2 13,261,1 873,80 10,783,1 13,268,1 871,12
Northeast
2 96 5 8 19 2 78 34 6 24 35 4
6,610,29 7,003,69 1,933,6 7,771,54 8,234,05 2,415,1 9,668,85 10,244,2 2,944,4 9,132,74 9,676,26 2,779,7
Central
9 8 93 6 4 52 0 72 63 9 6 24
1,016,07
South 960,871 9,261 867,468 917,308 7,459 868,586 918,491 7,144 899,880 951,583 7,313
8
Chiang Rai 440,071 475,724 23,786 538,733 582,380 29,119 720,917 779,324 38,966 736,945 796,650 39,833
Phayao 217,433 235,049 15,678 261,205 282,367 18,834 300,726 325,090 21,683 303,550 328,143 21,887
Lampang 203,144 219,602 10,980 191,513 207,029 10,351 228,274 246,768 12,338 225,815 244,110 12,205
Lamphun 80,918 87,474 4,155 63,279 68,406 3,249 88,842 96,040 4,562 89,111 96,331 4,576
Chiang Mai 228,138 246,621 -‐ 264,514 285,944 -‐ 338,756 366,201 -‐ 336,365 363,616 -‐
Mae Hong
52,416 56,663 2,691 36,032 38,951 1,850 49,897 53,940 2,562 51,774 55,969 2,659
Son
Tak 98,122 106,072 5,038 90,775 98,129 4,661 107,306 116,000 5,510 104,758 113,245 5,379
Kamphaeng
792,824 857,056 32,825 860,042 929,720 35,608 850,194 919,074 35,201 827,407 894,441 34,257
Phet
Sukhothai 303,425 328,008 36,081 463,298 500,833 55,092 560,337 605,734 66,631 519,240 561,307 61,744
Phrae 133,938 144,789 6,877 126,435 136,678 6,492 143,702 155,344 7,379 142,067 153,577 7,295
Nan 87,816 94,931 4,509 100,805 108,972 5,176 105,004 113,511 5,392 105,707 114,271 5,428
Uttaradit 252,790 273,270 11,395 279,809 302,478 12,613 384,891 416,074 17,350 386,711 418,041 17,432
Phitsanulok 695,004 751,311 88,880 917,341 991,661 117,31 1,141,67 1,234,17 146,00 1,031,10 1,114,63 131,86
98

4 7 2 3 1 8 2
1,146,99 1,239,91 1,228,71 1,328,26 1,139,69 1,232,03
Phichit 750,621 811,434 48,686 74,395 79,696 73,922
0 6 8 5 9 4
Nakhon 1,504,07 1,625,93 176,08 1,756,19 1,898,47 205,60 1,650,39 1,784,10 193,21
839,923 907,971 98,333
Sawan 9 5 9 1 2 5 0 0 8
Uthai Thani 162,958 176,160 8,368 334,890 362,022 17,196 386,619 417,942 19,852 361,586 390,881 18,567
Phetchabun 517,748 559,694 26,585 435,361 470,633 22,355 601,105 649,805 30,866 604,229 653,182 31,026
Loei 143,248 176,525 8,985 199,186 245,457 12,494 136,245 167,895 8,546 131,672 142,340 8,259
Nong Bua
203,252 250,468 12,749 227,368 280,186 14,261 274,699 338,512 17,230 268,194 330,496 16,822
Lam Phu
Udon Thani 482,248 594,275 30,249 582,493 717,807 36,536 589,225 726,103 36,959 575,892 709,672 36,122
Nong Khai 274,806 338,644 34,440 313,315 386,098 39,266 326,687 402,577 40,942 320,329 394,742 40,145
Sakon
395,067 486,841 25,949 393,390 484,775 25,839 586,336 722,542 38,512 576,266 710,133 37,850
Nakhon
Nakhon
240,173 295,965 -‐ 258,338 318,350 -‐ 286,251 352,747 -‐ 290,315 357,755 -‐
Phanom
Mukdahan 108,460 133,655 6,803 97,792 120,509 6,134 117,548 144,855 7,373 112,895 139,121 7,081
Yasothon 249,412 307,351 41,492 316,037 389,453 52,576 312,200 384,724 51,938 299,981 369,667 49,905
Amnat
249,478 307,432 15,648 249,094 306,959 15,624 289,539 356,799 18,161 291,159 358,796 18,263
Charoen
Ubon 128,88 1,078,52 149,16 1,206,13 166,80 1,172,27 162,12
756,246 931,923 875,212 978,767 951,288
Ratchathani 5 5 0 6 9 3 5
1,021,08 1,013,07
Si Sa Ket 692,588 853,477 -‐ 600,422 739,901 -‐ 828,602 -‐ 822,102 -‐
7 7
1,038,58 1,212,80 1,179,00
Surin 764,055 941,546 47,925 842,797 52,864 984,176 61,732 956,748 60,011
0 1 2
1,079,69 1,113,26 1,112,74
Buri Ram 798,580 984,091 50,090 876,165 54,957 903,404 56,665 902,984 56,639
9 6 8
Maha 467,299 575,853 -‐ 545,618 672,366 -‐ 601,660 741,426 -‐ 632,665 779,634 -‐
99

Sarakham
1,098,60 1,085,35
Roi Et 593,061 730,830 31,499 756,370 932,076 40,172 891,505 47,350 880,755 46,779
3 5
Kalasin 461,758 569,025 31,296 478,389 589,519 32,424 587,941 724,520 39,849 595,553 733,901 40,365
1,045,17
Khon Kaen 515,590 635,362 32,340 634,733 782,182 39,813 753,385 928,397 47,255 848,148 53,199
4
Chaiyaphum 310,211 382,273 19,764 400,092 493,034 25,490 350,877 432,386 22,354 349,666 430,894 22,277
Nakhon 1,086,26 194,33 1,161,94 207,87 1,185,75 212,13 1,203,35 215,28
881,490 942,907 962,231 976,512
Ratchasima 1 2 5 2 8 2 7 1
142,99 142,14
Saraburi 191,610 203,013 88,230 200,127 212,037 92,151 310,547 329,029 308,709 327,081
6 9
189,59 221,24 312,88 295,80
Lop Buri 411,744 436,248 480,492 509,088 679,498 719,937 642,410 680,642
3 9 5 7
Sing Buri 296,716
314,374 49,891 402,803 426,775 67,729 549,853 582,576 92,455 466,754 494,532 78,482
1,011,69 1,109,00 1,175,00 1,034,02 1,095,56
Chai Nat 954,868 47,651 837,638 887,488 41,801 55,343 51,601
5 5 5 3 1
1,098,77 1,164,16 280,09 1,253,06 1,327,64 319,43 1,608,10 1,703,80 409,93 1,496,69 1,585,76 381,53
Suphan Buri
3 4 8 7 1 0 2 5 5 5 8 6
113,72
Ang Thong 245,583 260,198 59,976 395,049 418,560 96,478 465,682 493,396 367,394 389,259 89,724
8
184,12 371,04 460,01 411,61
Ayutthaya 369,756 391,761 745,119 789,463 923,781 978,758 826,590 875,783
8 8 6 8
Nonthaburi 193,457 204,970 89,080 173,735 184,074 79,999 179,237 189,904 82,532 173,017 183,314 79,668
Bangkok
110,708 117,297 68,419 130,409 138,170 80,595 136,248 144,357 84,203 110,605 117,187 68,355
Metropolis
Pathum 219,72 269,81 278,63 255,15
341,142 361,444 418,921 443,852 432,613 458,359 396,157 419,733
Thani 2 8 6 6
Nakhon 109,67 111,09
197,030 208,756 85,903 228,863 242,483 99,782 251,553 266,524 254,805 269,969
Nayok 4 2
100

Prachin Buri 165,453 175,300 28,591 226,446 239,922 39,131 350,268 371,113 60,529 347,440 368,117 60,040
Chachoengs
629,062 666,499 37,057 563,038 596,546 33,168 681,251 721,794 40,132 688,279 729,241 40,546
ao
101,48 115,18 118,00
Sa Kaeo 175,287 185,719 80,713 220,399 233,516 250,139 265,026 256,267 271,518
6 0 2
Chanthaburi 28,593 30,295 13,166 15,503 16,426 7,139 15,705 16,640 7,232 13,518 14,322 6,225
Trat 15,517 16,440 7,145 15,500 16,422 7,137 14,347 15,201 6,606 15,116 16,016 6,960
Rayong 10,448 11,070 4,811 14,651 15,523 6,746 13,500 14,303 6,216 14,502 15,365 6,678
Chon Buri 52,679 55,814 24,257 37,053 39,258 17,062 47,264 50,077 21,763 55,182 58,466 25,409
Samut
58,327 61,798 42,746 63,581 67,365 46,596 46,775 49,559 34,280 49,007 51,924 35,916
Prakan
Samut
24,882 26,363 12,391 23,396 24,788 11,651 19,663 20,833 9,792 20,673 21,903 10,295
Sakhon
Nakhon 119,45 135,13 154,74 156,10
407,467 431,717 460,945 488,377 527,851 559,265 532,460 564,148
Pathom 6 4 9 0
Kanchanabu 102,48 139,97 140,91
166,324 176,222 76,586 222,571 235,817 303,982 322,073 306,029 324,242
ri 6 3 5
109,26 142,09 175,09 176,33
Ratchaburi 237,292 251,414 308,600 326,966 380,265 402,896 382,942 405,732
5 9 8 1
Samut
2,839 3,008 1,307 3,885 4,116 1,789 4,155 4,402 1,913 4,918 5,211 2,265
Songkhram
Phetchaburi 207,681 220,041 5,655 296,357 313,994 8,070 324,661 343,983 8,840 325,864 345,257 8,873
Prachuap
17,061 18,076 7,856 33,398 35,386 15,379 42,905 45,458 19,756 43,393 45,975 19,981
Khiri Khan
Chumphon 48,366 51,145 839 29,256 30,937 507 19,667 20,797 341 20,113 21,269 349
Ranong 5,265 5,568 91 5,019 5,307 87 1,052 1,112 18 1,128 1,193 20
Surat Thani 101,020 106,824 1,752 59,895 63,336 1,039 29,367 31,054 509 33,375 35,293 579
Phangnga 5,443 5,756 94 5,375 5,684 93 2,699 2,854 47 2,838 3,001 49
101

Phuket 476 503 8 672 711 12 374 395 6 450 476 8
Krabi 15,175 16,047 263 14,972 15,832 260 10,896 11,522 189 11,273 11,921 195
Trang 41,662 44,056 723 30,311 32,053 526 20,284 21,449 352 20,699 21,888 359
Nakhon Si
266,044 281,330 -‐ 271,158 286,737 -‐ 269,751 285,250 -‐ 287,824 304,361 -‐
Thammarat
Phatthalung 160,841 170,082 -‐ 166,227 175,778 -‐ 186,879 197,616 -‐ 190,397 201,336 -‐
Songkhla 144,050 152,326 2,498 134,350 142,069 2,330 160,036 169,231 2,775 161,625 170,911 2,803
Satun 36,030 38,100 625 31,889 33,721 553 30,639 32,399 531 31,404 33,208 545
Pattani 75,657 80,004 1,312 65,811 69,592 1,141 72,826 77,010 1,263 73,745 77,982 1,279
Yala 19,751 20,886 343 20,148 21,306 349 22,908 24,224 397 23,573 24,927 409
Narathiwat 41,091 43,452 713 32,385 34,246 562 41,208 43,576 715 41,436 43,817 719

102

Appendix C. Total amount of rice straw produced and burned from major rice in each province and region in Thailand in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2006.
Burned Burned Burned Burned

RS RS RS RS
National 17,728,6 20,338,0 2,129,6 19,788,3 22,659,9 2,566,6 23,539,1 26,887,3 3,081,8 22,899,7 26,166,5 2,951,7
Total 17 15 65 69 38 89 86 42 01 14 98 06
4,586,98 4,958,61 314,69 5,413,97 5,852,59 403,08 6,724,95 7,269,78 501,82 6,462,26 6,985,82 475,72
North
8 2 7 2 6 5 3 9 8 8 2 6
8,435,53 10,395,1 702,18 9,138,69 11,261,6 767,05 10,441,9 12,867,6 850,01 10,339,4 12,721,5 836,44
Northeast
9 23 1 7 25 9 86 70 4 61 30 2
3,790,64 4,016,23 1,103,8 4,469,95 4,735,97 1,389,5 5,597,13 5,930,23 1,723,2 5,297,27 5,612,53 1,632,6
Central
4 7 38 2 2 69 7 9 34 9 6 69
South 915,446 968,043 8,949 765,748 809,744 6,977 775,110 819,644 6,725 800,706 846,711 6,868
Chiang Rai 428,154 462,842 23,142 500,509 541,059 27,053 644,332 696,534 34,827 651,463 704,243 35,212
Phayao 216,784 234,347 15,631 259,839 280,890 18,735 299,719 324,001 21,611 302,197 326,680 21,790
Lampang 201,395 217,711 10,886 187,955 203,183 10,159 223,664 241,785 12,089 221,129 239,044 11,952
Lamphun 79,749 86,210 4,095 61,122 66,074 3,139 85,002 91,889 4,365 85,167 92,067 4,373
Chiang Mai 220,595 238,467 -‐ 239,460 258,860 -‐ 316,503 342,145 -‐ 313,718 339,134 -‐
Mae Hong
52,416 56,663 2,691 35,878 38,785 1,842 49,889 53,931 2,562 51,774 55,969 2,659
Son
Tak 89,809 97,085 4,612 80,555 87,081 4,136 95,545 103,286 4,906 92,111 99,574 4,730
Kamphaeng
592,139 640,112 24,516 497,599 537,913 20,602 548,895 593,365 22,726 531,843 574,931 22,020
Phet
Sukhothai 249,961 270,212 29,723 314,125 339,574 37,353 368,574 398,435 43,828 319,115 344,969 37,947
Phrae 133,929 144,780 6,877 125,664 135,845 6,453 141,970 153,472 7,290 140,315 151,683 7,205
Nan 86,586 93,601 4,446 97,652 105,563 5,014 104,013 112,440 5,341 104,693 113,175 5,376
Uttaradit 169,908 183,673 7,659 161,689 174,789 7,289 272,440 294,512 12,281 272,553 294,634 12,286
Phitsanulok 372,354 402,521 47,618 541,258 585,109 69,218 695,135 751,453 88,897 616,670 666,631 78,862
103

Phichit 419,358 453,333 27,200 629,393 680,385 40,823 767,807 830,012 49,801 708,087 765,454 45,927
Nakhon 1,068,04 115,66 1,261,07 1,363,24 147,64 1,217,94 1,316,61 142,59
611,482 661,022 71,589 988,001
Sawan 6 9 9 8 0 4 8 0
Uthai Thani 145,719 157,525 7,482 262,479 283,744 13,478 256,941 277,758 13,193 237,081 256,289 12,174
Phetchabun 516,650 558,507 26,529 430,794 465,696 22,121 593,445 641,524 30,472 596,408 644,727 30,625
Loei 142,474 175,571 8,937 198,299 244,364 12,438 135,474 166,945 8,497 130,866 141,468 8,208
Nong Bua
201,684 248,535 12,650 224,177 276,254 14,061 271,232 334,239 17,013 264,617 326,088 16,598
Lam Phu
Udon Thani 476,975 587,777 29,918 573,228 706,389 35,955 579,091 713,614 36,323 565,685 697,094 35,482
Nong Khai 262,957 324,042 32,955 299,346 368,884 37,516 306,977 378,288 38,472 300,469 370,268 37,656
Sakon
393,490 484,898 25,845 385,454 474,995 25,317 580,943 715,897 38,157 570,612 703,166 37,479
Nakhon
Nakhon
234,810 289,357 -‐ 253,380 312,240 -‐ 281,122 346,427 -‐ 285,034 351,248 -‐
Phanom
Mukdahan 108,417 133,602 6,800 97,726 120,428 6,130 117,493 144,787 7,370 112,826 139,036 7,077
Yasothon 248,763 306,551 41,384 309,899 381,889 51,555 302,582 372,872 50,338 289,846 357,178 48,219
Amnat
248,972 306,808 15,617 248,675 306,442 15,598 289,077 356,230 18,132 290,665 358,187 18,232
Charoen
Ubon 127,54 1,056,68 146,14 1,182,52 163,54 1,145,71 158,45
748,398 922,252 857,491 959,606 929,738
Ratchathani 7 7 0 3 3 7 3
1,014,72 1,006,29
Si Sa Ket 690,658 851,099 -‐ 591,820 729,300 -‐ 823,441 -‐ 816,602 -‐
7 9
1,036,08 1,211,84 1,177,49
Surin 763,871 941,319 47,913 840,774 52,737 983,398 61,683 955,523 59,934
7 2 2
1,079,47 1,112,81 1,111,64
Buri Ram 798,158 983,571 50,064 875,986 54,945 903,036 56,642 902,090 56,583
8 2 6
Maha
446,422 550,126 -‐ 482,609 594,720 -‐ 561,219 691,591 -‐ 558,607 688,372 -‐
Sarakham
Roi Et 581,138 716,137 30,866 711,722 877,056 37,801 854,451 1,052,94 45,382 843,162 1,039,02 44,782
104

1 9
Kalasin 413,293 509,301 28,012 357,649 440,731 24,240 465,960 574,203 31,581 472,640 582,435 32,034
Khon Kaen 490,487 604,428 30,765 578,777 713,227 36,303 733,403 903,773 46,002 782,399 964,151 49,075
Chaiyaphum 307,759 379,252 19,607 380,371 468,732 24,233 346,287 426,730 22,062 337,668 416,109 21,513
Nakhon 1,080,49 193,30 1,073,72 192,08 1,167,22 208,81 1,146,54 205,11
876,813 871,314 947,194 930,412
Ratchasima 8 1 1 9 8 7 8 7
Saraburi 144,516 153,117 66,544 140,651 149,022 64,765 201,653 213,654 92,854 194,511 206,087 89,565
113,21 125,70 212,26 203,04
Lop Buri 245,860 260,492 273,001 289,248 460,978 488,412 440,964 467,207
0 7 4 8
Sing Buri 143,329 151,859 24,100 230,145 243,842 38,698 286,417 303,463 48,160 224,405 237,760 37,733
Chai Nat 573,372 607,495 28,613 477,473 505,889 23,827 641,780 679,974 32,027 609,574 645,852 30,420
126,63 146,19 188,56 181,69
Suphan Buri 496,765 526,329 573,484 607,614 739,688 783,709 712,770 755,189
5 2 0 8
Ang Thong 113,891 120,669 27,814 179,438 190,117 43,822 233,373 247,262 56,994 156,910 166,248 38,320
207,66 251,77 224,68
Ayutthaya 197,283 209,024 98,241 417,030 441,849 505,605 535,695 451,202 478,054
9 7 6
Nonthaburi 83,658 88,637 38,522 79,337 84,059 36,532 78,796 83,485 36,283 78,641 83,321 36,211
Bangkok
66,986 70,973 41,398 65,822 69,739 40,679 86,355 91,494 53,369 65,779 69,694 40,652
Metropolis
Pathum 142,23 147,37 139,21
129,730 137,451 83,556 220,830 233,972 228,820 242,438 216,138 229,001
Thani 2 8 0
Nakhon
155,835 165,109 67,942 177,630 188,201 77,445 215,766 228,607 94,072 215,133 227,936 93,796
Nayok
Prachin Buri 135,521 143,586 23,419 195,115 206,727 33,717 276,439 292,891 47,770 273,121 289,375 47,197
Chachoengs
381,792 404,514 22,491 367,460 389,329 21,647 463,198 490,764 27,286 459,423 486,765 27,064
ao
100,11 113,61 116,42
Sa Kaeo 174,620 185,012 80,406 217,426 230,366 246,739 261,423 252,835 267,882
7 5 2
105

Chanthaburi 28,593 30,295 13,166 15,503 16,426 7,139 15,705 16,640 7,232 13,518 14,322 6,225
Trat 15,486 16,408 7,131 14,585 15,453 6,716 13,716 14,532 6,316 14,158 15,001 6,519
Rayong 9,675 10,251 4,455 9,973 10,567 4,592 8,658 9,173 3,987 8,943 9,475 4,118
Chon Buri 52,653 55,787 24,245 36,813 39,004 16,951 44,969 47,645 20,707 52,767 55,907 24,297
Samut
28,179 29,856 20,651 25,525 27,044 18,706 26,390 27,961 19,340 27,723 29,373 20,317
Prakan
Samut
19,242 20,387 9,582 15,177 16,080 7,558 12,048 12,765 6,000 12,611 13,362 6,280
Sakhon
Nakhon
190,754 202,106 55,923 243,960 258,479 71,521 244,002 258,523 71,533 246,279 260,936 72,201
Pathom
Kanchanabu
102,945 109,072 47,403 122,023 129,285 56,187 178,477 189,099 82,182 179,466 190,147 82,638
ri
Ratchaburi 143,849 152,410 66,237 179,548 190,233 82,675 189,068 200,320 87,059 190,019 201,328 87,497
Samut
2,055 2,177 946 1,716 1,818 790 1,604 1,699 739 1,768 1,873 814
Songkhram
Phetchaburi 137,870 146,075 3,754 170,659 180,815 4,647 172,954 183,247 4,709 174,770 185,171 4,759
Prachuap
16,185 17,148 7,453 19,628 20,796 9,038 23,939 25,364 11,023 23,851 25,270 10,983
Khiri Khan
Chumphon 43,518 46,018 755 24,777 26,201 430 17,401 18,401 302 17,817 18,841 309
Ranong 5,265 5,568 91 5,019 5,307 87 1,052 1,112 18 1,128 1,193 20
Surat Thani 99,535 105,254 1,726 54,986 58,145 954 24,154 25,542 419 27,780 29,376 482
Phangnga 5,443 5,756 94 5,375 5,684 93 2,699 2,854 47 2,838 3,001 49
Phuket 476 503 8 672 711 12 374 395 6 450 476 8
Krabi 15,175 16,047 263 14,972 15,832 260 10,896 11,522 189 11,273 11,921 195
Trang 41,602 43,992 721 30,220 31,956 524 20,284 21,449 352 20,699 21,888 359
Nakhon Si
252,095 266,579 -‐ 229,785 242,987 -‐ 219,797 232,425 -‐ 235,932 249,487 -‐
Thammarat
Phatthalung 147,328 155,793 -‐ 133,650 141,329 -‐ 167,510 177,134 -‐ 168,751 178,447 -‐
106

Songkhla 133,543 141,216 2,316 122,799 129,854 2,130 151,735 160,453 2,631 152,194 160,938 2,639
Satun 35,982 38,049 624 31,798 33,625 551 30,547 32,302 530 31,310 33,109 543
Pattani 74,730 79,024 1,296 59,878 63,318 1,038 64,789 68,511 1,124 65,782 69,562 1,141
Yala 19,751 20,886 343 20,148 21,306 349 22,858 24,171 396 23,520 24,871 408
Narathiwat 41,003 43,359 711 31,669 33,489 549 41,014 43,370 711 41,232 43,601 715

107

Appendix D. Total amount of rice straw produced and burned from major rice in each province and region in Thailand in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2006.
Burne Burned Burned Burned

d RS RS RS RS
National 3,086,4 3,295,8 735,31
5,274,0 5,679,3 1,037,9
6,025,2 6,487,4 1,222,0
6,891,4 7,404,9 1,446,6
Total 98 44 1
87 45 23
96 67 38 44
19 75
1,852,9 2,003,0 1,957,4 2,116,0 2,268,2 2,451,9
North 666,827 720,851 57,390 159,775 170,131 197,767
48 68 97 88 03 66
Northeast 67,720 83,451 5,249 301,010 370,935 26,470 358,502 441,782 20,634 319,292 393,347 23,792
2,166,7 2,295,6 669,54 2,889,1 3,061,1 3,490,1 3,697,8 1,027,6 4,071,7 4,314,0 1,221,2
Central 847,683
04 51 6 87 31 19 26 05 13 33 29
South 185,247 195,890 3,125 230,942 244,211 3,996 219,178 231,771 3,673 232,230 245,573 3,886
Chiang Rai 9,310 10,064 503 35,126 37,972 1,899 65,270 70,558 3,528 76,585 82,790 4,139
Phayao 2,630 2,843 190 787 851 57 943 1,019 68 1,007 1,089 73
Lampang 1,506 1,628 81 3,156 3,412 171 2,943 3,181 159 4,610 4,983 249
Lamphun 2,232 2,413 115 2,233 2,414 115 3,482 3,764 179 3,840 4,151 197
Chiang Mai 4,829 5,220 -‐ 8,837 9,553 -‐ 19,976 21,594 -‐ 22,253 24,056 -‐
Mae Hong
-‐ -‐ -‐ 113 122 6 -‐ -‐ -‐ 8 9 0
Son
Tak 124 134 6 10,242 11,072 526 10,138 10,959 521 11,761 12,714 604
Kamphaeng
101,851 110,103 4,217 308,312 333,291 12,765 278,628 301,202 11,536 301,299 325,709 12,475
Phet
Sukhothai 39,172 42,346 4,658 116,903 126,374 13,901 168,015 181,627 19,979 191,763 207,299 22,803
Phrae -‐ -‐ -‐ 620 670 32 1,523 1,646 78 1,732 1,872 89
Nan 699 756 36 2,465 2,665 127 267 289 14 991 1,071 51
Uttaradit 29,537 31,930 1,331 75,089 81,172 3,385 108,641 117,443 4,897 112,451 121,561 5,069
Phitsanulok 168,615 182,276 21,563 400,978 433,464 51,279 368,420 398,268 47,115 446,542 482,719 57,106
Phichit 204,609 221,186 13,271 470,304 508,407 30,504 430,367 465,234 27,914 460,911 498,253 29,895
108

Nakhon
94,267 101,904 11,036 358,417 387,455 41,961 434,026 469,189 50,813 495,112 535,224 57,965
Sawan
Uthai Thani 7,446 8,049 382 56,097 60,642 2,880 59,870 64,720 3,074 129,678 140,184 6,659
Phetchabun -‐ -‐ -‐ 3,269 3,534 168 4,988 5,392 256 7,660 8,281 393
Loei 423 521 27 1,724 2,124 108 361 445 23 771 833 48
Nong Bua
242 298 15 1,976 2,435 124 2,851 3,513 179 3,467 4,272 217
Lam Phu
Udon Thani 2,081 2,564 131 5,361 6,606 336 8,751 10,784 549 10,134 12,488 636
Nong Khai 6,385 7,868 800 9,670 11,916 1,212 17,800 21,935 2,231 19,710 24,289 2,470
Sakon
743 916 49 3,730 4,596 245 3,579 4,410 235 5,393 6,646 354
Nakhon
Nakhon
4,910 6,051 -‐ 8,634 10,640 -‐ 3,941 4,856 -‐ 5,129 6,320 -‐
Phanom
Mukdahan 22 27 1 57 70 4 -‐ -‐ -‐ 55 68 3
Yasothon 157 193 26 3,511 4,327 584 2,475 3,050 412 9,618 11,852 1,600
Amnat
255 314 16 495 610 31 -‐ -‐ -‐ 462 569 29
Charoen
Ubon
8,105 9,988 1,381 18,452 22,738 3,145 13,140 16,192 2,239 19,161 23,612 3,266
Ratchathani
Si Sa Ket 226 279 -‐ 4,531 5,584 -‐ 4,035 4,972 -‐ 5,161 6,360 -‐
Surin 154 190 10 1,513 1,864 95 249 307 16 778 959 49
Buri Ram 218 269 14 221 272 14 184 227 12 368 453 23
Maha
1,634 2,014 -‐ 42,112 51,895 -‐ 76,120 93,803 -‐ 40,441 49,835 -‐
Sarakham
Roi Et 5,006 6,169 266 16,717 20,600 888 32,457 39,997 1,724 37,054 45,662 1,968
Kalasin 32,645 40,228 2,213 87,293 107,571 5,916 126,670 156,096 8,585 121,981 150,317 8,267
Khon Kaen 2,548 3,140 160 40,196 49,534 2,521 59,866 73,773 3,755 19,982 24,624 1,253
Chaiyaphum 1,862 2,295 119 5,344 6,585 340 4,162 5,129 265 4,590 5,656 292
109

Nakhon
104 128 23 49,473 60,966 10,907 1,861 2,293 410 15,037 18,530 3,315
Ratchasima
Saraburi 14,835 15,718 6,831 61,970 65,658 28,535 101,473 107,512 46,725 108,894 115,375 50,142
Lop Buri 36,482 38,653 16,799 129,677 137,394 59,712 193,796 205,329 89,236 218,520 231,525 100,621
Sing Buri 61,408 65,063 10,325 201,354 213,337 33,857 236,185 250,241 39,713 263,436 279,114 44,295
Chai Nat 227,174 240,694 11,337 305,287 323,456 15,235 413,410 438,013 20,630 467,225 495,031 23,316
134,22
Suphan Buri 526,548 557,884 675,762 715,979 172,264 814,457 862,928 207,620 868,414 920,096 221,375
7
Ang Thong 56,962 60,352 13,911 183,196 194,099 44,740 181,210 191,994 44,255 232,309 246,134 56,734
Ayutthaya 157,362 166,727 78,362 229,300 242,946 114,185 346,446 367,064 172,520 418,176 443,063 208,240
Nonthaburi 105,389 111,661 48,528 80,902 85,717 37,252 69,023 73,131 31,783 100,441 106,419 46,249
Bangkok
52,815 55,958 32,640 48,574 51,465 30,019 35,854 37,988 22,158 49,893 52,862 30,835
Metropolis
Pathum 113,48
176,193 186,679 162,898 172,593 104,919 140,342 148,694 90,391 203,793 215,921 131,259
Thani 2
Nakhon
23,923 25,347 10,430 15,704 16,639 6,847 30,416 32,226 13,261 35,787 37,917 15,603
Nayok
Prachin Buri 9,239 9,789 1,597 45,825 48,552 7,919 67,250 71,252 11,621 73,829 78,223 12,758
Chachoengsa
197,969 209,751 11,662 202,289 214,328 11,917 190,273 201,597 11,209 218,053 231,030 12,845
o
Sa Kaeo -‐ -‐ -‐ 2,550 2,702 1,174 2,057 2,179 947 3,400 3,602 1,566
Chanthaburi -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 0 -‐
Trat -‐ -‐ -‐ 1,261 1,336 581 290 307 134 631 669 291
Rayong 1,971 2,088 908 2,776 2,941 1,278 4,106 4,350 1,891 4,842 5,130 2,230
Chon Buri 42 44 19 2,432 2,577 1,120 821 870 378 2,295 2,432 1,057
Samut
17,927 18,994 13,138 21,521 22,802 15,772 11,143 11,806 8,166 20,385 21,598 14,939
Prakan
Samut 9,171 9,717 4,567 8,399 8,899 4,182 6,013 6,371 2,994 7,615 8,068 3,792
110

Sakhon
Nakhon
244,675 259,236 71,731 195,204 206,821 57,227 257,055 272,353 75,360 283,849 300,742 83,215
Pathom
Kanchanaburi 76,086 80,614 35,035 95,119 100,780 43,799 110,333 116,899 50,804 125,505 132,974 57,791
Ratchaburi 103,933 110,118 47,857 100,467 106,446 46,261 177,727 188,304 81,837 191,197 202,576 88,039
Samut
631 669 291 2,868 3,039 1,321 2,539 2,690 1,169 2,551 2,703 1,175
Songkhram
Phetchaburi 56,566 59,932 1,540 103,542 109,704 2,819 97,586 103,394 2,657 151,707 160,736 4,131
Prachuap
9,403 9,963 4,330 10,310 10,924 4,747 314 333 145 18,966 20,095 8,733
Khiri Khan
Chumphon 8,174 8,644 142 6,509 6,883 113 1,307 1,382 23 2,266 2,396 39
Ranong 1,278 1,351 22 3,155 3,336 55 4,023 4,254 70 5,213 5,513 90
Surat Thani -‐ -‐ -‐ 39 41 1 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 0 -‐
Phangnga -‐ -‐ -‐ 254 269 4 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 0 -‐
Phuket 10,193 10,779 177 22,360 23,645 388 54,284 57,403 941 49,954 52,824 866
Krabi 12,526 13,246 217 51,158 54,097 887 14,191 15,006 246 19,369 20,482 336
Trang 10,934 11,562 190 27,555 29,138 478 926 979 16 8,301 8,778 144
Nakhon Si
34 36 -‐ 45 48 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ 92 97 -‐
Thammarat
Phatthalung 5,041 5,331 -‐ 486 514 -‐ 7,383 7,807 -‐ 8,037 8,499 -‐
Songkhla 185 196 3 286 302 5 -‐ -‐ -‐ 50 53 1
Satun 383 405 7 751 794 13 122 129 2 194 205 3
Pattani 75,657 80,004 1,312 65,811 69,592 1,141 72,826 77,010 1,263 73,745 77,982 1,279
Yala 19,751 20,886 343 20,148 21,306 349 22,908 24,224 397 23,573 24,927 409
Narathiwat 41,091 43,452 713 32,385 34,246 562 41,208 43,576 715 41,436 43,817 719
111

Appendix E. Proximate Analysis
To calculate the moisture, volatile organic carbon, fixed carbon, and ash content from the graphs
obtained from the TGA, the following equations were used:
⎡⎛ A − B ⎞ ⎤
Moisture in analysis sample, % = ⎢⎜ ⎟ × 100⎥
⎣⎝ A ⎠ ⎦
Here, A is the original mass of sample used and B is the mass of sample after being heated to 110°C
⎡⎛ B − C ⎞ ⎤
VOC in analysis sample, % = ⎢⎜ B ⎟ × 100⎥
⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦
Here, C is the mass of sample after heating to 900°C. The percentage of ash in the sample is any
mass remaining after all other components have been burned off, in other words the mass left at the
end of the program.
Fixed carbon, % = 100-‐ (moisture, % + ash, % + volatile matter, %)
The complete graphical TGA results for all rice straw samples analyzed are shown below:
1000
Nakorn Sawan 5.5
A B
900 5
800 4.5 Temperature

4 Weight
Temperature (C)
700
3.5
600
Weight (mg)
3
500
2.5
400 C
2
300
D
1.5
200 1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Nakorn Sawan rice straw sample.
112

1000 5.5
Chianat Straw
900 5
Temperature
4.5
800
Weight
Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 4
700
3.5
600
Weight (mg)
3
500
2.5
400
2
300
1.5
200
1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (min)

TGA results for Chainat rice straw sample
Suphan Buri
1000 6
900
5
800 Temperature
700
Weight
4
Temperature (C)
600
Weight (mg)
500 3
400
2
300
200
1
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Suphan Buri rice straw sample
113

1000 5
Chiang Mai 1
900 4.5
Temperature
800 4
Weight
700 3.5
Temperature (C)
600 3
Weight (mg)
500 2.5
400 2
300 1.5
200 1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (min)

TGA results for Chiang Mai rice straw field 1.
Chiang Mai 4
1000 6
Temperature
A B
900 5.5 Weight
5
800
4.5
700
4
Temperature (C)
600
Weight (mg)
3.5
500 3
400 2.5
C 2
300
1.5
200
D 1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Chiang Mai rice straw field 2.
114

B Post Harvest
1000 5
900 4.5
Temperature
800 4 Weight
700 3.5
Temperature (C)
Weight (mg)
600 3
500 2.5
400 2
300 1.5
200 1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Samut Sakorn post harvest rice straw sample, Field B.
B Pre-burn
1000 5
900 4.5
Temperature
800 4
Weight
700 3.5
Temperature (C)
Weight (mg)
600 3
500 2.5
400 2
300 1.5
200 1
100 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Samut Sakorn pre-‐burn rice straw sample, Field B
115

D Post Harvest
1000 6
Temperature
900 Weight
5
800
700
4
Temperature (C)
Weight (mg)
600
500 3
400
2
300
200
1
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Samut Sakorn post harvest rice straw sample, Field D
D Pre-burn
1000 6
900
5
800
Temperature
Weight
700
4
Temperature (C)
Weight (mg)
600
500 3
400
2
300
200
1
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)

TGA results for Samut Sakorn pre-‐burn rice straw sample, Field D.
116

Appendix F. Energetic Feasibility Analysis
Ha
Rice Straw Rice Straw Calorific Value Baling Energy Consumption (L Harveste Diesel Fuel Economy Transportation Energy Value Diesel Energy
Amount (kg) (MJ per kg) diesel per ha) d (L per km) Distance (km) (MJ per L) Balance
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 5 38.7 78117.50
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 10 38.7 78034.84
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 15 38.7 77952.18
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 20 38.7 77869.51
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 25 38.7 77786.85
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 30 38.7 77704.19
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 35 38.7 77621.52
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 40 38.7 77538.86
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 45 38.7 77456.20
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 50 38.7 77373.53
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 55 38.7 77290.87
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 60 38.7 77208.21
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 65 38.7 77125.54
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 70 38.7 77042.88
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 75 38.7 76960.22
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 80 38.7 76877.56
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 85 38.7 76794.89
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 90 38.7 76712.23
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 95 38.7 76629.57
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 100 38.7 76546.90
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 105 38.7 76464.24
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 110 38.7 76381.58
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 115 38.7 76298.91
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 120 38.7 76216.25
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 125 38.7 76133.59
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 130 38.7 76050.92
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 135 38.7 75968.26
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 140 38.7 75885.60
117

16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 145 38.7 75802.93
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 150 38.7 75720.27
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 155 38.7 75637.61
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 160 38.7 75554.94
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 165 38.7 75472.28
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 170 38.7 75389.62
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 175 38.7 75306.95
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 180 38.7 75224.29
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 185 38.7 75141.63
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 190 38.7 75058.96
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 195 38.7 74976.30
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 200 38.7 74893.64
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 205 38.7 74810.98
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 210 38.7 74728.31
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 215 38.7 74645.65
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 220 38.7 74562.99
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 225 38.7 74480.32
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 230 38.7 74397.66
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 235 38.7 74315.00
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 240 38.7 74232.33
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 245 38.7 74149.67
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 250 38.7 74067.01
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 500 38.7 69933.85
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 1000 38.7 61667.53
16,000 4.8965 1.2492 2.98 0.4272 1500 38.7 53401.21

118

Appendix G. Economic Feasibility Analysis
Rice
Straw Baling Market Economic
Market Cost Roadsiding Price Balance
Value (USD Cost (USD Loading/Unloading Diesel Fuel Diesel (Hauling
Rice Straw (USD per Ton per Ton Cost (USD per Ton Economy Transportation (USD Subsidies/Incentives Economic Cost Hauling
Amount (kg) per kg) Straw) Straw) Straw) (L per km) Distance (km) per L) (USD per Ton Straw) Balance Formula) Cost
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 5 0.72 0.00 21.81 -‐80.58 103.66
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 10 0.72 0.00 20.53 -‐94.25 117.33
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 15 0.72 0.00 19.26 -‐107.91 130.99
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 20 0.72 0.00 17.98 -‐121.58 144.66
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 25 0.72 0.00 16.71 -‐135.24 158.32
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 30 0.72 0.00 15.43 -‐148.91 171.99
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 35 0.72 0.00 14.16 -‐162.57 185.65
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 40 0.72 0.00 12.89 -‐176.24 199.32
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 45 0.72 0.00 11.61 -‐189.90 212.98
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 50 0.72 0.00 10.34 -‐203.57 226.65
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 55 0.72 0.00 9.06 -‐217.23 240.31
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 60 0.72 0.00 7.79 -‐230.90 253.98
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 65 0.72 0.00 6.51 -‐244.56 267.64
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 70 0.72 0.00 5.24 -‐258.22 281.30
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 75 0.72 0.00 3.97 -‐271.89 294.97
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 80 0.72 0.00 2.69 -‐285.55 308.63
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 85 0.72 0.00 1.42 -‐299.22 322.30
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 90 0.72 0.00 0.14 -‐312.88 335.96
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 95 0.72 0.00 -‐1.13 -‐326.55 349.63
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 100 0.72 0.00 -‐2.41 -‐340.21 363.29
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 105 0.72 0.00 -‐3.68 -‐353.88 376.96
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 110 0.72 0.00 -‐4.95 -‐367.54 390.62
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 115 0.72 0.00 -‐6.23 -‐381.21 404.29
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 120 0.72 0.00 -‐7.50 -‐394.87 417.95
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 125 0.72 0.00 -‐8.78 -‐408.53 431.61
119

16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 130 0.72 0.00 -‐10.05 -‐422.20 445.28
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 135 0.72 0.00 -‐11.33 -‐435.86 458.94
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 140 0.72 0.00 -‐12.60 -‐449.53 472.61
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 145 0.72 0.00 -‐13.88 -‐463.19 486.27
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 150 0.72 0.00 -‐15.15 -‐476.86 499.94
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 155 0.72 0.00 -‐16.42 -‐490.52 513.60
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 160 0.72 0.00 -‐17.70 -‐504.19 527.27
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 165 0.72 0.00 -‐18.97 -‐517.85 540.93
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 170 0.72 0.00 -‐20.25 -‐531.52 554.60
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 175 0.72 0.00 -‐21.52 -‐545.18 568.26
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 180 0.72 0.00 -‐22.80 -‐558.85 581.93
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 185 0.72 0.00 -‐24.07 -‐572.51 595.59
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 190 0.72 0.00 -‐25.34 -‐586.17 609.25
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 195 0.72 0.00 -‐26.62 -‐599.84 622.92
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 200 0.72 0.00 -‐27.89 -‐613.50 636.58
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 205 0.72 0.00 -‐29.17 -‐627.17 650.25
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 210 0.72 0.00 -‐30.44 -‐640.83 663.91
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 215 0.72 0.00 -‐31.72 -‐654.50 677.58
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 220 0.72 0.00 -‐32.99 -‐668.16 691.24
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 225 0.72 0.00 -‐34.26 -‐681.83 704.91
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 230 0.72 0.00 -‐35.54 -‐695.49 718.57
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 235 0.72 0.00 -‐36.81 -‐709.16 732.24
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 240 0.72 0.00 -‐38.09 -‐722.82 745.90
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 245 0.72 0.00 -‐39.36 -‐736.49 759.57
16,000 0.025 15.43 2.20 3.31 0.356 250 0.72 0.00 -‐40.64 -‐750.15 773.23

120

Works Cited
Abdel-‐Mohdya, F.A. et al. Carbohyd. Polym. 2008, 75(1), 44. (Rice straw as a new resource for some
beneficial uses.)
Ahring, B. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biot. 2003, 81, 1. (Perspectives for anaerobic digestion).
Angelidaki, I. et al. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biot. 2003, 82, 2. (Applications of the anaerobic digestion.)
Aromatic Rices; Singh, R.K., Ed.; Sing, U.S., Ed.; Khush, G.S., Ed.; Oxford and IBH Publishing: New
Delhi, India, 2000.
Bakker-‐Dhaliwal, R. et al. Rice straw harvesting and handling for off-‐field utilization: 2nd annual
report. 1999. Prepared for the United States Department of Agriculture.
Bird, J.A. et al. Calif. Agr. 2002, 56, 69. (Long-‐term studies find benefits, challenges in alternative rice
straw management)
Byous, E.W. et al. Better Crops with Plant Food. 2004, 88(3), 6. (Nutrient requirements of rice with
alternative straw management.)
Calvo, L.F. et al. Fuel Process. Technol. 2004, 85, 279. (Heating process characteristics and kinetics of
rice straw in different atmospheres.)
Cao, G.L. et al. Chinese Sci. Bull. 2008, 53(5), 784. (Estimation of emissions from field burning of crop
straw in China.)
Clyde Bergemann, Inc. 2005. Knowledge Base: Slagging and Fouling.

[http://www.clydebergemann.com/content_manager/go/ID/27817/dbc/100d53c54050b7e22a659f
2d85301f90]
Cuiping, L. Biomass Bioenerg. 2004, 27, 119. (Chemical elemental characteristics of biomass fuels in
China.)
De Datta, S.K. Principles and Practices of Rice Production. John Wiley & Sons: Singapore, 1981.
de Lucia, M.; Assennato, D. Agricultural engineering in development: Post-‐harvest operations and
management of foodgrains – the harvest. 1994. FAO Agricultural Service Bulletin No. 93.
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0522E/T0522E05.htm]
Demirbas, A. Prog Energ Combust. 2004, 30, 219. (Combustion characteristics of different biomass
fuels.)
Dobermann, A. Fairhurst, T.H. Better Crops International. 2002, 16, 7. (Rice straw management.)
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). 2007. 2007 EGAT Annual Report: Key Statistical
Data. [http://pr.egat.co.th/all_work/annual2007/eng/E90.pdf]
Fadel, J.G.; MacKill, D.J. Characterization of Rice Straw. 1994. California Rice Research Board.
[http://www.carrb.com/94rpt/RiceStraw.htm]
121

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007. Regional Data Exchange System (RDES): Thailand
Sub-‐national Statistical Data. [http://faorap-‐apcas.org/thailand/busdirectory/search_results.asp]
Forrest, L. et al. Report of the Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning. 1994.
California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board.
Forrest, L., et al. Report of the Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning. 1997.
California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board.
Gadde, B. et al. International Rice Research Notes. 2007, 32(2), 5. (Technologies for energy use of
rice straw: a review.)
Gadde, B.; Menke, C.; Wassmann, R. GMSARN International Conference on Sustainable
Development: Challenges and Opportunities for GMS. 2007. (Possible energy utilization of rice straw
in Thailand.)
Garivait, S. et al. The 2nd Joint International Conference on Sustainabile Energy and Environment,
Bangkok, 2006. (Physical and chemical properties of Thai biomass fuels from agricultural residues.)
Ghani, W.A.W.A.K. et al. Waste Manage. 2008. (Co-‐combustion of agricultural wastes with coal in a
fluidized bed combustor.)
Ghosh, A.; Bhattacharyya, B.C. Bioprocess. Eng. 1999, 20, 297. (Biomethanation of white rotted and
brown rotted rice straw.)
Greenland, D.J. The Sustainability of Rice Farming. CAB International: Oxon, 1997.
Hofstrand, D. Energy measurements and conversions. 2007. Ag Marketing Resource Center.
[http://www.ecotec-‐systems.com/Resources/FUEL_CONVERSION_WORK_SHEET.pdf]
Hong, S. The usability of switchgrass, rice straw, and logging residue as feedstocks for power
generation in east Texas. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2007.
Huai, T. et al. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 2333. (Analysis of heavy-‐duty diesel truck activity and
emissions data.)
Huang, C. et al. Energy Convers. Manage. 2008, 39, 3433. (Prediction of heating value of straw by
proximate data, and near infrared spectroscopy.)
Huisman, W. et al. Cost evaluation of bale storage systems for rice straw. 2002. Proceedings
Bioenergy 2002: Bioenergy 2002.
International Rice Research Institute. 2007. World Rice Statistics. [http://beta.irri.org/statistics]
Islam, M.R.; Nabi, N.; Islam, M.N. Jurnal Teknologi. 2003, 38, 75. (The fuel properties of pyrolytic oils
derived from carbonaceous solid wastes in Bangladesh.)
Jenkins, B.M. et al. ASAE Annual International Meeting. 2000. Paper No. 006035. (Equipment
performance, costs, and constraints in the commercial harvesting of rice straw for industrial
applications.)
122

Jenkins, B.M. et al. Fuel Process. Technol. 1998, 54, 17. (Combustion properties of biomass.)
Jin, S.; Chen, H. Process Biochem. 2006, 41, 1261. (Structural properties and enzymatic hydrolysis of
rice straw.)
Jorgensen, K., Meier, E.H., Madsen, O.H. 1st World Conference on Biomass for Energy and Industry,
Sevilla, 2000, 717-‐720. (Modern biomass boilers.)
Kadam, K. et al. Biomass Bioenerg. 2000, 18, 369. (Rice straw as a lignocellulosic resource: collection,
processing, transportation, and environmental aspects.)
Karimi, K., Emtiazi, G., Taherzadeh, M.J. Enzyme Microb. Tech. 2006, 40, 138. (Ethanol production
from dilute-‐acid pretreated rice straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with
Mucor indicus, Rhizopus oryzae, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.)
Khor, A. and Ryu, C. Fuel. 2007, 86, 152. (Straw combustion in a fixed bed combustor.)
Limpasuwan, T. et al. Energ. Policy. 2004, 32, 301. ( A proposal for transmission pricing methodology
in Thailand based on electricity tracing and long-‐run average incremental cost.)
McCarl, B.A. et al. Annals of Operations Research. 2000, 94(1), 37. (Competitiveness of biomass-‐
fueled electrical power plants.)
McKendry, P. Bioresource Technol. 2002, 83, 55. (Energy production from biomass (part 3):
gasification technologies.)
Miyagawa, S. S. Asia. 1996, 33(4). (Recent expansion of nonglutinous rice cultivation in northeast
Thailand.)
Nemestothy, K.P. Wood fuels: characteristics, standards, production technology. 2007. Austrian
Energy Agency. [www.bioheat.info/pdf/kpn_wood_fuels_at.pdf]
Office of Agricultural Economics. 2007. Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2003.
[http://www.oae.go.th/statistic]
Okasha, F. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2007, 32, 52. (Staged combustion of rice straw in a fluidized bed.)
Passioura, J. Agr Water Manage. 2006, 80, 176. (Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce –
from breeding to field management.)
Peng, S. et al. Field Crop Res. 2006, 96, 252. (Comparison between aerobic and flooded rice in the
tropics: Agronomic performance in an eight-‐season performance.)
Pollution Control Department of Thailand (PCD). 2005. Monitoring and assessment of biomass open
burning in agricultural areas/lands in Thailand.
Pronobis, M. Fuel. 2006, 85, 474. (The influence of biomass co-‐combustion on boiler fouling and
efficiency.)
Rerkasem, B.; Rerkasem, K. CMU Journal. 2002, 1(2), 129. (Agrodiversity for in situ conservation of
Thailand’s native rice germoplasm.)
123

Romyen, P. Field Crop Res. 1998, 59, 109. (Lowland rice improvement in northern and northeastern
Thailand. 2. Cultivar differences.)
Sardar Patel Renewable Energy Research Institute (SPRERI). Annual report 2005-‐06. 2006. SPRERI,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India.
Shen, H.Sh.; Ni, D.B.; Sunstol, F. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 1998, 73, 243. (Studies on untreated and urea-‐
treated rice straw from three cultivation seasons: 1. Physical and chemical measurements in straw
and straw fractions.)
Sims, R.E. The Brilliance of Bioenergy in Business and in Practice. Earthscan, 2002.
[http://books.google.co.th/books?id=UONAkQ6w2qgC&hl=en]
Somayaji, D.; Khanna, S. World J. Microb. Biot. 2000, 10, 521. (Biomethanation of Somayaji, D. and
Khanna, S. 2000.)
Summers, M.D. et al. Biomass Bioenerg. 2003, 24, 163. (Biomass production and allocation in rice
with implications for straw harvesting and utilization.)
Suramaythangkoor, T.; Gheewala, S. Energ. Policy. 2008, 36, 2193. (Potential of practical
implementation of rice straw-‐based power generation in Thailand.)
TSS Consultants, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), U.S. Department of Energy. 2005.
Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass Gasification Technology: Pilot Plant Gasifier
and Syngas Conversion Testing.
United States Department of Energy. 2004. Feedstock composition glossary. [http://www.ethanol-‐
gec.org/information/briefing/19.pdf]
van den Broek, R.; Faaji, A.; van Wijk, A. Background Report on Energy from Biomass: An Assessment
of Two Promising Systems for Energy Production. 1995. Utrecht Univeristy, the Netherlands.
[http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/95029.htm]
Viana, M. et al. Atmos Environ. 2008, 42, 1941. (Tracers and impact of open burning of rice straw
residues on PM in Eastern Spain.)
Visvanathan, C.; Chiemchaisri, C. Management of agricultural wastes and residues in Thailand:
Wastes to energy approach. 2006. Sustainable Solid Waste Landfill Managements in Asia.
[http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/newinterface/projectpublications.htm]
Wassmann, R.; Dobermann, A. Climate Change and Rice Cropping Systems: Potential adaptation and
mitigation strategies. 2006. International Rice Research Institute. [http://www.hm-‐
treasury.gov.uk/d/stern_review_supporting_technical_material_irri_231006.pdf]
124

Witt, C. et al. Field Crop Res. 1999, 63, 113. (Internal nutrient efficiencies of irrigated lowland rice in
tropical and subtropical Asia.)
Yadvika. Bioresource Technol. 2004, 95, 1. (Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates
using different techniques—a review.)
Yoshida, S. Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science. International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos,
Laguna, Philippines, 1981.
Zhou, H.; Jensen, H.D.; Glarborg, P. Fuel. 2005, 84, 389. (Numerical modeling of straw combustion on
a fixed bed.)
Zhu, X.F. International Conference on Bioenergy Utilization and Environment Protection.2003.
(Biomass pyrolysis and its potential for China.)
125

Rice Straw To Energy - Imp.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rice Straw To Energy - Imp.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility of Rice Straw Utilization for

Savitri Garivait (JGSEE-­‐KMUTT)

Rich Kamens (UNC-­‐CH)

Special Thanks to:

Penwadee Cheewaphongphan (JGSEE-­‐KMUTT)

Ubonwan Chaiyo (JGSEE-­‐KMUTT)

Kanittha Kanokkanjana (JGSEE-­‐KMUTT)

BFB-­‐Bubbling Fluidized Bed

CFB-­‐Circulating Fluidized Bed

FAO-­‐Food and Agriculture Organization

GSR-­‐Grain to Straw Ratio

HHV-­‐Higher Heating Value

IRRI-­‐International Rice Research Institute

LHV-­‐Lower Heating Value

PCD-­‐Pollution Control Department

SCG-­‐Siam Cement Group

VOC-­‐Volatile Organic Compounds

1. Introduction to Rice Agriculture

Figure 1.1. Rough rice production worldwide, 1961-­‐2007. (IRRI 2007).

Figure 1.3. Rough rice yield worldwide, 1961-­‐2007. (IRRI 2007).

1.1. Rice Agriculture in Thailand

Figure 1.4. Land use in Thailand. (OAE 2001).

Figure1.5. Regions of Thailand and land use. (OAE 2001).

1.1.1.1. Northeast Thailand

1.1.1.3. Northern Thailand

1.1.1.4. Southern Thailand

1.1.2. Increasing Rice Production in Thailand

Figure 1.6. Rice production in Thailand, 1994-­‐2003. (OAE 2003).

Figure 1.8. Rice yield in Thailand, 1994-­‐2003. (OAE 2003).

Figure 1.9. Irrigated area in Thailand, 1003-­‐2003. (OAE 2003)

1.1.2.2. Use of Fertilizers

Figure 1.10. Fertilizer consumption in Thailand, 1961-­‐2002. (IRRI 2002)

1.2.1. Classification of Cultivation Methods

1.2.2. General Cultivation Practices

1.2.2.2. Stand Establishment

1.2.2.2.2. Seedling Raising

1.2.2.2.3. Seedling Handling

1.2.2.5. Direct-­‐Seeded (Dry)

1.2.2.6. Broadcast in Water

1.2.3. Growing Environments

Figure 1.11. Barker and Herdt rice cultivation classification system.

1.2.3.2. Irrigated Lowland

1.2.3.3. Rainfed Lowland

1.3. International Data

1.4. By-­‐products and Residues from Rice Cultivation

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000

Area burned Area burned (rai) Cultivated Burn/Cultivated

Type of land Burned/Cultivated Area, α (%) from

2.1.1. Thailand Residue Burn Data

Figure 2.2. Residue Utilization-­‐ Northern Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.3. Residue Utilization-­‐ Northeast Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.4. Residue Utilization-­‐ Central Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.5. Residue Utilization-­‐ Southern Thailand. (PCD 2005).

2.2.3.1. Rice Production Statistics

2.2.3.3. SGR Differences

Table 2.4. highlights the results of the previous calculations.

North Northeast Central South Total

2.2.3.5. PCD Data

North Northeast Central South Total

2.2.4.1. Rice Straw Produced

Rice Straw Produced

Suphan Buri C 1585768

Ubon Ratchathani NE 1172273

Savitri Garivait (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)

Rich Kamens (UNC-‐CH)

Penwadee Cheewaphongphan (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)

Ubonwan Chaiyo (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)

Kanittha Kanokkanjana (JGSEE-‐KMUTT)

BFB-‐Bubbling Fluidized Bed

CFB-‐Circulating Fluidized Bed

FAO-‐Food and Agriculture Organization

GSR-‐Grain to Straw Ratio

HHV-‐Higher Heating Value

IRRI-‐International Rice Research Institute

LHV-‐Lower Heating Value

PCD-‐Pollution Control Department

SCG-‐Siam Cement Group

VOC-‐Volatile Organic Compounds

Figure 1.1. Rough rice production worldwide, 1961-‐2007. (IRRI 2007).

Figure 1.3. Rough rice yield worldwide, 1961-‐2007. (IRRI 2007).

Figure 1.6. Rice production in Thailand, 1994-‐2003. (OAE 2003).

Figure 1.8. Rice yield in Thailand, 1994-‐2003. (OAE 2003).

Figure 1.9. Irrigated area in Thailand, 1003-‐2003. (OAE 2003)

Figure 1.10. Fertilizer consumption in Thailand, 1961-‐2002. (IRRI 2002)

1.2.2.5. Direct-‐Seeded (Dry)

1.4. By-‐products and Residues from Rice Cultivation

Figure 2.2. Residue Utilization-‐ Northern Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.3. Residue Utilization-‐ Northeast Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.4. Residue Utilization-‐ Central Thailand. (PCD 2005).

Figure 2.5. Residue Utilization-‐ Southern Thailand. (PCD 2005).

4.3.3. Pyrolytic Bio-‐oils

Bituminous Coal 17,000-‐23,350

B Pre-‐burn Average 1.35 33.58 4.89

D Pre-‐burn Average 1.11 35.93 5.21