**3. Conclusions**

**Variables Values considered Units Variables Values obtained Units** CvgEE<sup>1</sup> 0,90 (\$/MWh) CvpEE<sup>5</sup> 66.060,00 (\$/year) CvgH2 0,55 (\$/MWh) CvpH6 18.837,50 (\$/year)

*CvgEE: average annual variable cost depending on the generation of electric energy in cogeneration system.*

*CvgH: average annual variable cost depending on the generation of thermal energy in cogeneration system.*

*CvpEE: average annual variable cost of electricity in the cogeneration system, according Eq. (24).*

*CvpH: average annual variable cost of thermal energy in the cogeneration system, according Eq. (25).*

**Variables Values considered Units Variables Values obtained Units** Cbf<sup>1</sup> 75.004,50 (\$/year) Cv5 216.993,84 (\$/year)

TE3 34,25 (GWh/year) EE4 73,40 (GWh/year)

*Biotechnological Applications of Biomass*

*EE: Annual electricity generated (useful annual electric exergy).*

*Data and results estimated by Eqs. (24) and (25).*

Ct<sup>2</sup> 57.091,84 (\$/year) CvpEE<sup>3</sup> 66.060,00 (\$/year) CvpH4 18.837,50 (\$/year)

Variable cost<sup>2</sup> 216,99 (1000 \$/year)

**considered**

Total cost<sup>2</sup> 1.014,02 (1000 \$/year)

*Ct: average annual cost of transporting forest biomass, according Eq. (27).*

*CvpEE: average annual variable cost for production of electricity, according Eq. (24).*

*CvpH: average annual variable cost for production of thermal energy, according Eq. (25).*

*Cv: average annual variable cost for production of electrical and thermal energy, according Eq. (23).*

**Variables Values considered Units Variables Values obtained Units** Fixed costs1 797,03 (1000 \$/year) total cost<sup>3</sup> 1.014,02 (1000 \$/year)

107,65 (GWh/year) exergoeconomic

**Units Variables Values**

cost3

**obtained**

**Units**

106,16 (kWh/\$)

*Cbf: cost of forest biomass, according Eq. (28).*

*Data and results estimated by Eq. (23).*

*Data and results estimated by Eq. (31).*

**Variables Values**

*Data and results estimated by Eq. (32).*

*TE: Thermal useful annual exergy.*

*1*

*2*

*3*

*4*

*5*

*6*

*1*

*2*

*3*

*4*

*5*

*1*

*2*

*3*

*1*

*2*

*3*

**178**

**Table 16.**

**Table 15.**

*According to Eq. (18).*

*According to Eq. (23).*

*According to Eq. (31).*

Useful annual exergy<sup>1</sup>

*According to Eq. (18).*

*According to Eq. (31).*

*According to Eq. (32).*

**Table 14.**

**Table 13.**

The parameter used in this chapter to assess the feasibility of the proposed agroenergetic alternative is the exergoeconomic cost.

The non-conventional alternative evaluated is the use of a silvopastoral system aimed at the production of forest biomass and its energy utilization in a thermal and electric energy cogeneration system.

The economic feasibility analysis is a cost/benefit analysis, which can be done based on tariff parameters practiced in the energy market.

For that, comparative measures with the values practiced in the energy sector can be used.

Just as an example, a comparison parameter is the value practiced from 2003 onwards for the average electricity supply tariff for the Brazilian electric system for all consumption classes and geographic regions of the country [28], which is (61.40 \$/MWh), much higher than the value found in the present simulation (9.42 \$/MWh).

Therefore, this study presents indications of good viability for this energy alternative as a possibility, which can be inserted among the renewable energy options in the energy matrix of the future.
