Red Flags in a Biomass Feasibility Study

Fuel assumptions without evidence

Be wary of fuel quantities taken from national statistics without local verification, a single fuel sample, or a delivered cost that ignores collection and storage losses. Good studies show where the numbers came from and how they were checked.

Technology chosen before the fuel was tested

If the study names a technology supplier on page one but the fuel analysis is in an appendix, the order may have been reversed. The fuel should drive the technology choice, not the other way round.

Availability that is too good

Biomass plants need regular maintenance and suffer from fuel-related outages, especially in their first years. Very high availability assumptions, with no ramp-up period, flatter the economics.

A single financial case

A model with no sensitivities, or sensitivities that move one input at a time by small amounts, hides risk. Look for combined downside cases and a clear statement of the break-even fuel cost and power price.

Grid and permits treated as formalities

If the study says the connection and permits “will be obtained” without evidence of contact with the authorities, the schedule is probably optimistic.

No view on operations

Staffing, training, spares and fuel quality control should be addressed. A plant that cannot be operated well will not deliver the model’s numbers.

Getting a second opinion

An independent review by engineers who build and run power plants can confirm a study’s conclusions or reveal what needs more work before money is committed. See our guide to the full scope of a feasibility study.