KnE Social Sciences

Published date: Sep 16 2025

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The Mercu Buana Ecobiz Energy International Conference: Sustainability and ESG Reporting in the Energy Sector

Pages: 173 - 186

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v10i21.19703

Sucipto Nugrohonugrohos2609@gmail.comMaster of Management Student, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta

Antonius SetyadiFaculty of Economy and Business, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta

PLN, Indonesia’s state-owned electricity company, continues to commit and innovate towards achieving the target of 23% new and renewable energy (NRE) mix by 2025 and net zero emissions by 2060. One of its programs is the Biomass Co-firing in Steam Power Plants (PLTU), a substitution technique in combustion that utilizes biomass as an alternative to partially and/or entirely replace coal as fuel. This study aims to analyze the impact of biomass quantity, biomass delivery, and power plant infrastructure on the productivity of biomass co-firing electricity production at steam power plants. This research employs a quantitative approach. The sampling technique used is purposive sampling, with a total of 100 respondents. Data analysis was conducted using the structural equation model (SEM) with the help of SmartPLS version 4 software. The results show that biomass quantity (X1) and power plant infrastructure (X3) have a positive and significant impact, while biomass delivery (X2) has a positive but not significant effect on the productivity of biomass co-firing electricity production at steam power plants (Y). The R-Square value is 0.355. The equation model is as follows: Y = 0.352 X1 + 0.035 X2 + 0.377 X3. Practical implications include establishing long-term partnerships with industrial/energy plantation forest managers, conducting stakeholder management, and conducting power plant readiness assessments.

Keywords: biomass quantity, biomass delivery, power plant infrastructure, biomass co-firing, steam power plants, SEM-PLS

[1] Anerud E, Bergstrom D, Routa J, Eliasson L. Fuel quality and dry matter losses of stored wood chips – Influence of cover material. Biomass Bioenergy. 2021;150:106– 9.

[2] PT PLN (Persero). Laporan program co-firing PLTU batubara dengan biomassa pada 52 lokasi periode Desember 2023. Jakarta; 2023.

[3] Hasibuan S, Jaqin C, Yunita I, Nugroho B, Buana UM, Pakuan U. Barriers and drivers of biomass renewable energy as co-firing in industrial supply chain with bibliometric analysis. In: Proc 12th Int Conf Renew Energy Environ Sustain. 2022;1279–1287.

[4] Grant BD, Trautrims A, Wong CY. Sustainable management supply chain logistics and principles. 2017.

[5] Allaoui H, Guo Y, Sarkis J. Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod. 2019;229:761–74.

[6] Galik CS, Benedum ME, Kauffman M, Becker DR. Opportunities and barriers to forest biomass energy: A case study of four U.S. states. Biomass Bioenergy. 2021;148:106035.

[7] Gold S, Seuring S. Supply chain and logistics issues of bio-energy production. J Clean Prod. 2011;19(1):32–42.

[8] Carter CR, Rogers DS. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag. 2008;38(5):360–87.

[9] Hart J. Biomass supply chain logistics for co-firing coal power plants. 2016.

[10] Chandra Dwiaji Y. Analisis pengaruh co-firing biomassa terhadap kinerja peralatan boiler PLTU batubara unit 1 PT. XYZ. J Appl Mech Eng Renew Energy. 2023;3(1):8–16.

[11] How BS, Lam HL. Sustainability evaluation for biomass supply chain synthesis: novel principal component analysis (PCA) aided optimisation approach. J Clean Prod. 2018;189:941–61.

[12] Sidik AP. Pengaruh pembangunan infrastruktur jalan dan listrik terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi di Kalimantan tahun 1994–2008. 2011.

[13] Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta; 2017.

[14] Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice Hall; 1998.

[15] Chin W. The partial least squares approach to SEM chapter. In: Modern Methods for Business Research. 1998. p. 295–336.

[16] Ghozali I, Latan H. Konsep, teknik, aplikasi menggunakan Smart PLS 3.0 untuk penelitian empiris. 2015.

[17] Wetzels M, Odekerken-Schröder, van Oppen. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. Manage Inf Syst Q. 2009;33(1):177–95.

[18] Ardianto SK. Manajemen risiko penggunaan biomassa sebagai alternatif bahan bakar co-firing untuk pembangkit listrik tenaga uap. PLTU; 2023.

[19] Lee SY. Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470024737.

[20] Rosillo-Calle F. The biomass assessment handbook: Bioenergy for a sustainable environment. 2007

[21] Hall D, Rao K. Photosynthesis. 6th ed.; 1999.

[22] Panda A. Energy supply chain of co-firing system to generate electricity. November 2019.

[23] Zahraee SM, Shiwakoti N, Stasinopoulos P. Biomass supply chain environmental and socio-economic analysis: 40-years comprehensive review of methods, decision issues, sustainability challenges, and the way forward. Biomass Bioenergy. 2020;142( June):105777.

[24] Diji CJ. Electricity production from biomass in Nigeria: Options, prospects and challenges. Adv Mat Res. 2013;824:444–50.

[25] Roni MS, Eksioglu SD, Searcy E, Jha K. A supply chain network design model for biomass co-firing in coal-fired power plants. Transp Res, Part E Logist Trans Rev. 2014;61:115–34.

[26] Siregar S. Metode penelitian kuantitatif. Jakarta: PT Fajar Interpratama Mandiri; 2013.