Skip to main content

Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Hybrid Steam Biomass Gasification-Based Tri-Generation System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Progress in Exergy, Energy, and the Environment

Abstract

In this chapter, exergoeconomic analysis is performed for a hybrid system combining gasifier and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) as the core units. The pressurised SOFC considered is a planar type in geometry, operating at 1,000 K, and the gasifier gasifies biomass (sawdust) in a media of steam and operates near atmospheric pressure and at a range of operating temperature of 1,023–1,423 K. The analysis is conducted at steam–biomass ratio of 0.8 kmol-steam per kmol-biomass. The gasification system has a capacity of 8.1–8.6 kg h−1 from the steam gasification-derived hydrogen, and the SOFC has an efficiency of 50.3 % and utilises the hydrogen produced from gasifier to generate power. Exergoeconomic analyses are performed to investigate and describe the exergetic and economic interaction between the system components through calculating the exergy costs of the streams for each component of this hybrid system. In the studied gasification temperature range and on the basis of electricity cost of 0.1046 $/kWh, it is found that both primary and secondary hydrogen costs decrease. The unit of exergy from primary hydrogen costs 0.103–0.045 $/kWh, while the unit of exergy from secondary hydrogen costs 0.064–0.039 $/kWh.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dincer I, Rosen MA (2005) Thermodynamic aspects of renewable and sustainable. Dev Renew Sust Energ Rev 9:169–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Omosun O, Bauen A, Brandon NP, Adjiman CS, Hart D (2004) Modelling system efficiencies and costs of two biomass-fuelled SOFC systems. J Power Sources 131(1–2):96–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A (2008) Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined heat and power (CHP) system. Int J Energy Res 32:273–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M (1985) Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy-conversion plants-I. A new general methodology. Energy 10:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsatsaronis G, Pisa J (1994) Exergoeconomic evaluation and optimization of energy systems application to the CGAM problem. Energy 19(3):287–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim SM, Doek S, Kwon YH, Kwak HY (1998) Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal systems. Energy 23:393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Colpan CO, Yesin T (2006) Energetic, exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of Bilkent combined cycle cogeneration plant. Int J Energy Res 30:875–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iwasaki W (2003) A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass. Int J Hydrog Energy 28:939–944

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Ogden JM (1999) Developing an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles: a South California case study. Int J Hydrog Energy 24:709–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Richards M, Liss M (2003) Reformer-based hydrogen fueling station economics. July 2002. In: Iwasaki, W., A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass. Int J Hydrog Energy 28:939–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Georgi D (2002) Hydrogen extraction, more than one way to skin the cat. In: Iwasaki W. A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2003;28:939–944

    Google Scholar 

  12. Abuadala A, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2010) Exergy analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:4981–4990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abuadala A, Dincer I (2010) Efficiency evaluation of dry hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Thermochim Acta 507–508:127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abuadala A, Dincer I (2012) Investigation of a multi-generation system using hybrid steam biomass gasification for hydrogen, power and heat. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:13146–13157. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fryda L, Panopoulos KD, Karl J, Kakaras E (2008) Exergetic analysis of solid oxide fuel cell and biomass gasification integration with heat pipes. Energy 33:292–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hulteberg PC, Karlsson HT (2009) A study of combined biomass gasification and electrolysis for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:772–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Simell PA, Hirvensalo EK, Smolander ST, Krause AO (1999) Steam reforming of gasification gas tar over dolomite with benzene as a model compound. Ind Eng Chem Res 38:1250–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Szargut J Morris DR, Steward FR (2007) Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and metallurgical processes. In: Pellegrini LF, Jr, Oliveira S. Exergy analysis of sugarcane bagasse gasification. Energy 32:314–327

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shieh JH, Fan LT (1982) Estimation of energy (enthalpy) and exergy (availability) contents in structurally complicated materials. Energy Sources 6:1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Turn S, Kinoshita C, Zhang Z, Ishimura D, Zhou J (1998) An experimental investigation of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Int J Hydrog Energy 23:641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cengel YA, Boles MA (2008) Thermodynamics: an engineering approach, 6th edn. Mc Graw Hill Companies, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hyman D, Kay WB (1949) In: Li C, Suzuki K (2009) Tar property, analysis, reforming mechanism and model for biomass gasification-An overview 13:594–604

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lowry HH (1963) In: Eisermann W, Johnson P, Conger WL (1979) Estimating thermodynamic properties of coal, char, tar and ash. Fuel Process Technol 3:39–53

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisermann W, Johnson P, Conger WL (1979) Estimating thermodynamic properties of coal, char, tar and ash. Fuel Process Technol 3:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Valero A, Lozano MA, Serra L (1994) CGAM problem: definition and conventional solution. Energy 19(3):279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gaggioli RA, Wepfer WJ (1960) Exergy economics. Energy 5:823–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsatsaronis, G. Application of thermoeconomics to the design and synthesis of energy plants, energy, energy system analysis, and optimization. http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%20Chapters/C08/E3-19-02-07.pdf

  28. Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G (2006) SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 31:1257–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Moran MJ, Shapiro HN (2007) Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics. John Wiley, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Calise F, d’Accadia MD, Vanoli L, Von Spakovsky MR (2007) Full load synthesis/design optimization of a hybrid SOFC–GT power plant. Energy 32:446–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Palazzi F, Autissier N, Marechal F, Favrat D (2007) A methodology for thermo-economic modeling and optimization of solid oxide fuel cell systems. Appl Therm Eng 27:2703–2712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Penniall CL, Williamson CL (2009) Feasibility study into the potential for gasification plant in the New Zealand wood processing industry. Energy Policy 37:3377–3386

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ogden JM (1999) Prospects for building a hydrogen energy infrastructure. Ann Rev Energy Envision 24:227–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to acknowledge a support of Libyan Ministry for Education via Libyan Embassy in Canada. The support provided by University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) is also greatly acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdussalam Abuadala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Nomenclature

Nomenclature

A :

Area (m2)

C :

Carbon content in biomass (wt %)

c :

Cost per unit of exergy ($/kWh)

\( \dot{C} \) :

Exergy cost rate ($/h)

\( {\dot{C}}_o \) :

Annualised cost of a component ($/y)

C 0 :

Initial investment cost of a component ($)

CRF :

Capital recovery factor (–)

Cp :

Constant pressure-specific heat (kJ/kg K)

\( \overline{C}p \) :

Constant pressure-specific heat (kJ/kmol K)

ER :

Exchange rate (CA$/US$)

Ex :

Specific exergy (kJ/kg or kJ/kmol)

\( \dot{E}x \) :

Exergy rate (kW)

Ex o :

Standard exergy (kJ/kmol)

h :

Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg or kJ/kmol)

h O f :

Standard enthalpy of formation (kJ/kmol)

H :

Hydrogen content in biomass (wt %)

i :

Interest rate (%)

j :

Salvage ratio (%)

LHV :

Lower heating value (kJ/kg)

\( \dot{m} \) :

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

N :

Nitrogen content in biomass (wt %)

n :

Number of moles (kmol) or lifetime of components (years)

\( \dot{N} \) :

Molar flow rate (kmol/s)

O :

Oxygen content in biomass (wt %)

P 0 :

Reference pressure (101.325 kPa)

Pr :

Biomass cost ($/GJ)

PW :

Present worth ($)

PWF :

Present worth factor (–)

R :

Universal gas constant (8.314 kJ kmol−1 K−1)

s :

Specific entropy (kJ/kg K)

\( \overline{s} \) :

Specific entropy (kJ/kmol K)

S :

Sulphur content in biomass (wt %)

S n :

Salvage value ($)

\( \dot{S} \) :

Entropy generation (kW/K)

T :

Temperature (K)

T 0 :

Reference temperature (298 K)

U f :

Utilisation factor (–)

\( \dot{W} \) :

Power (kW)

X :

Mole fraction (–)

\( \dot{Z} \) :

Cost of owning and operating a component ($/h)

Ø :

Maintenance factor (–)

τ :

Annual component operation time at the nominal capacity (h)

β :

Quality coefficient (–)

air :

Air

biomass :

Biomass

ch :

Related to chemical exergy

CO 2 :

Related to carbon dioxide

e :

Exit

f :

Fuel

F :

Filter

HE :

Heat exchanger

H 2 :

Related to hydrogen

H 2 O :

Related to water

i :

Inlet

o :

At reference or ambient or initial

O 2 :

Related to oxygen

ph :

Related to physical exergy

des :

Destruction

Sep :

Separator

SOFC :

Solid oxide fuel cell

SRR :

Steam-reforming reactor

SSR :

Steam shift reactor

STACK :

Stack

t :

Turbine

tar :

Related to tar

W :

Power or electricity

Over dot :

Quantity per time

Over bar :

Quantity per kmol

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abuadala, A., Dincer, I. (2014). Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Hybrid Steam Biomass Gasification-Based Tri-Generation System. In: Dincer, I., Midilli, A., Kucuk, H. (eds) Progress in Exergy, Energy, and the Environment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04681-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04681-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04680-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04681-5

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics