Analysis of the Optimization Results

Season Power distribution Case 1 (kW) Case 2 (kW) Case 3 (kW) 

As for Case 3, the amount of utilized is lesser biomass than in Case 1. As such, only one dryer was chosen in Case 3 instead of two dryers as shown in Case 1. 

On the other hand, Table 5.10 shows that the amount of Era, PMF and PKS biomasses utilized in Case 2 are higher than in Cases 1 and 3. Since POME is utilized to generate power in Case 1, less amount of EFB, PMF and PKS would be required to achieve maximum GP. In contrast, Case 2 utilized more of EFB, PMF and PKS biomasses to compensate for not generating power from POME. Besides that. Case 3 utilized much higher amount of PKS biomass than in Cases 1 and 2 due to the low-quality EFB biomass considered. Despite such difference in all three cases, it is noted the available palm-based biomass supply in each season was sufficient for the BTS to be energy self-sustained and to meet the POM demands (shown in Table 5.11). 

---