Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of the bio-syngas production costs from biomass using gas post-treatment of water scrubber and Selexol

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomass frequently constrains its widespread application due to its low economic efficiency. In this project, a new approach of biomass application was explored to reduce bio-syngas production cost. A model for the bio-syngas production from biomass gasification and bio-syngas purification (Selexol and water scrubbing) were studied. Based on the simulation results, we assessed the feasibility and viability of the project. Preliminary results showed that the bio-syngas production cost with Selexol (2.15 $/Nm3) is even higher than biomass used in power generation systems (equal to 1.58–2.21 $/Nm3). However, water scrubber was used as bio-syngas purification, the capital investment cost and bio-syngas production cost (1.34 $/Nm3) was significantly reduced. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the bio-syngas price, which could be further reduced by various factors: biomass price, carbon taxes, and carbon credits. We assumed that bio-syngas was applied to natural gas pipeline, our analysis showed that the application of bio-syngas (2 to 10% content) to natural gas had little impact on natural gas properties: combustion value and price. The technology of water scrubber makes the applications of biomass-based fuels competitive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. AlZubi AA et al (2023) Synthesis of porous, hydrophobic aerogel through the reinforcement of bamboo-shaped oxidized multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the silica matrix for oil spill cleaning. Clean Technol Environ Policy 25(6):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dmitrienko MA, Nyashina GS, Strizhak PA (2018) Major gas emissions from combustion of slurry fuels based on coal, coal waste, and coal derivatives. J Clean Prod 177:284–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Taba LE et al (2012) The effect of temperature on various parameters in coal, biomass and CO-gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(8):5584–5596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekwurzel B et al (2017) The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers. Clim Change 144(4):579–590

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leal-Arcas R, Carafa L (2014) Road to Paris COP21: towards soft global governance for climate change. Renew Energy L & Pol’y Rev 5:130

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tawn R, Browell J (2022) A review of very short-term wind and solar power forecasting. Renew Sust Energ Rev 153:111758

  7. Yang F, Meerman J, Faaij A (2021) Carbon capture and biomass in industry: a techno-economic analysis and comparison of negative emission options. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 144:111028

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Braimakis K et al (2020) Εnergy-exergy analysis of ultra-supercritical biomass-fuelled steam power plants for industrial CHP, district heating and cooling. Renew Energy 154:252–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdul Malek A, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA (2020) Prospects, progress, challenges and policies for clean power generation from biomass resources. Clean Technol Environ Policy 22:1229–1253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fushimi C (2021) Valorization of biomass power generation system: noble use of combustion and integration with energy storage. Energy Fuels 35(5):3715–3730

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu X et al (2019) Gasification of coal and biomass as a net carbon-negative power source for environment-friendly electricity generation in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(17):8206–8213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Couto N et al (2013) Influence of the biomass gasification processes on the final composition of syngas. Energy Proc 36:596–606

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Giuliano A, Catizzone E, Freda C (2021) Process simulation and environmental aspects of dimethyl ether production from digestate-derived syngas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(2):807

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sookramoon K (2018) Syngas from Updraft Gasifier Incineration for Internal Combustion Engine Power Generation in Klongluang PathumThani Thailand[C]//MATEC Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences 187:03002

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abdoulmoumine N et al (2015) A review on biomass gasification syngas cleanup. Appl Energy 155:294–307

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Voldsund M, Jordal K, Anantharaman R (2016) Hydrogen production with CO2 capture. Int J Hydrogen Energy 41(9):4969–4992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zang G et al (2018) A comparative study of biomass integrated gasification combined cycle power systems: performance analysis. Biores Technol 255:246–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ashkanani HE et al (2020) Levelized cost of CO2 captured using five physical solvents in pre-combustion applications. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 101:103135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ou H-W, Chou M-S, Chang H-Y (2020) Removal of hydrogen sulfide from biogas using a bubbling tank fed with aerated wastewater. Aerosol Air Qual Res 20(3):643–653

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Li Z et al (2019) Optimization of a wet scrubber with electrolyzed water spray—Part I: Ammonia removal. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 69(5):592–602

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee B-K et al (2013) Evaluating the performance of a turbulent wet scrubber for scrubbing particulate matter. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 63(5):499–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vargas-Moreno J et al (2012) A review of the mathematical models for predicting the heating value of biomass materials. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(5):3065–3083

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Serrano C, Portero H, Monedero E (2013) Pine chips combustion in a 50 kW domestic biomass boiler. Fuel 111:564–573

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kombe EY et al (2022) Numerical investigation of sugarcane bagasse gasification using Aspen Plus and response surface methodology. Energy Convers Manage 254:115198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee C-J et al (2009) Optimal gas-to-liquid product selection from natural gas under uncertain price scenarios. Ind Eng Chem Res 48(2):794–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gambarotta A, Morini M, Zubani A (2018) A non-stoichiometric equilibrium model for the simulation of the biomass gasification process. Appl Energy 227:119–127

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Puig-Gamero M et al (2018) Three integrated process simulation using aspen plus®: Pine gasification, syngas cleaning and methanol synthesis. Energy Convers Manage 177:416–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmad MI et al (2015) Performance and carbon efficiency analysis of biomass via stratified gasifier. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 10(20):9533–9537

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Agrawal R et al (2007) Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(12):4828–4833

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen Z-S, Wang L-Q (2013) Energy and exergy analysis of gas production from biomass intermittent gasification. J Renew Sustain Energy 5(6):063141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Khzouz M, Gkanas EI (2017) Experimental and numerical study of low temperature methane steam reforming for hydrogen production. Catalysts 8(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kohl AL and Nielsen RB 1997 Physical solvents for acid gas removal. Gas Purif: 5

  33. Frilund C et al (2021) Small-to medium-scale deep syngas purification: biomass-to-liquids multi-contaminant removal demonstration. Biomass Bioenerg 148:106031

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Craig K R, Mann M K (1996) Cost and performance analysis of biomass-based integrated gasification combined-cycle (BIGCC) power systems[R]. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States)

  35. Addai-Asante S, Hao T (2017) Techno-economic analysis of biomass integrated electricity generation system. Nat Gas 200:5–49

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kreutz TG et al (2020) Techno-economic prospects for producing Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel and electricity from lignite and woody biomass with CO2 capture for EOR. Appl Energy 279:115841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Li X et al (2021) Multi-criteria decision making of biomass gasification-based cogeneration systems with heat storage and solid dehumidification of desiccant coated heat exchangers. Energy 233:121122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rubin ES, Davison JE, Herzog HJ (2015) The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40:378–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Toweh J (2020) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Scrubber Installation on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Coal Electricity Generating Units[D] 1–22

  40. Susanto H, Suria T, Pranolo S (2018) Economic analysis of biomass gasification for generating electricity in rural areas in Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  41. IEA-ETSAP I (2015) Biomass for Heat and Power[J]. Technology Brief, IEA-ETSAP and IRENA© Technology Brief E05 e January 1–24

  42. Zhang Z et al (2021) Simulation and techno-economic assessment of bio-methanol production from pine biomass, biochar and pyrolysis oil. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 44:101002

    Google Scholar 

  43. Patrizio P et al (2021) CO2 mitigation or removal: the optimal uses of biomass in energy system decarbonization. Iscience 24(7):102765

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mohamed U et al (2020) Sustainability evaluation of biomass direct gasification using chemical looping technology for power generation with and w/o CO2 capture. Energy 205:117904

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim H, Parajuli P B, Yu F, et al (2011) Economic analysis and assessment of syngas production using a modeling approach[C]//2011 Louisville, Kentucky, August 7-10, 2011. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 1

  46. Migo-Sumagang MVP et al (2020) Rice-straw-based heat generation system compared to open-field burning and soil incorporation of rice straw: an assessment of energy, GHG emissions, and economic impacts. Sustainability 12(13):5327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gielen D (2012) Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series. Sol photovolt 1(1):52

    Google Scholar 

  48. Masum MFH. Projecting the sustainability of biopower generation in Georgia, United States. 2020, University of Georgia.

  49. Pomerleau K and Asen E. 2019 Carbon tax and revenue recycling: revenue, economic, and distributional implications. Fiscal Fact: 674

  50. Antonanzas J, Quinn JC (2023) Regional greenhouse gas analysis of compressor drivers in natural gas transmission systems in Canada. J Clean Prod 400:136671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Moura IDP et al (2021) Carbon dioxide abatement by integration of methane bi-reforming process with ammonia and urea synthesis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 151:111619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to express great appreciation to Pierre-Oliver Lemire and Jinsheng Xiao for his valuable and constructive suggestions in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy and Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, Taizhou University, 93 Ji Chuan Road, Taizhou, 225300, People’s Republic of China

    Zhihai Zhang

  2. Institut d’Innovations en Écomatériaux, Écoproduits Et Écoénergies À Base Biomasse, Université du Québec À Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. Des Forges, Trois-Rivières, QC, G9A 5H7, Canada

    Zhihai Zhang, Olivier Rezazgui & Patrice Mangin

  3. Laboratoire Des Technologies de L’Énergie, Hydro-Québec Research Institute, 600 Avenue de La Montagne, Shawinigan, QC, G9N 7N5, Canada

    Benoit Delcroix

Authors
  1. Zhihai Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier Rezazgui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benoit Delcroix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrice Mangin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Patrice Mangin proposed the conception of the whole paper and provided the resources needed for the paper. Benoit Delcroix provided the software and analyzed the software data. Olivier Rezazgui was responsible for the formal analysis and the review of the article. Zhihai Zhang validated the simulation results and completed the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrice Mangin.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 10

Table 10 Biomass NC definition
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 11

Table 11 Biomass gasification data
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 12

Table 12 Selexol
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 13

Table 13 Water scrubber
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Rezazgui, O., Delcroix, B. et al. A comparison of the bio-syngas production costs from biomass using gas post-treatment of water scrubber and Selexol. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05369-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-024-05369-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation