Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Co-gasification of solid waste and lignite – A case study

for Western Macedonia
a,*
N. Koukouzas , A. Katsiadakis a, E. Karlopoulos a, E. Kakaras a,b

a
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)/Institute for Solid Fuels Technology and Applications (ISFTA),
4th km N.R. Ptolemais-Kozani, 502 00 Ptolemais, Greece
b
Laboratory of Steam Boilers and Thermal Plants, Mechanical Engineering Department, National Technical University of Athens,
Heroon Polytechniou Ave., 157 80 Zografou Athens, Greece

Accepted 26 April 2007

Available online 13 July 2007

Abstract

Co-gasification of solid waste and coal is a very attractive and efficient way of generating power, but also an alternative way, apart
from conventional technologies such as incineration and landfill, of treating waste materials. The technology of co-gasification can result
in very clean power plants using a wide range of solid fuels but there are considerable economic and environmental challenges.
The aim of this study is to present the available existing co-gasification techniques and projects for coal and solid wastes and to inves-
tigate the techno-economic feasibility, concerning the installation and operation of a 30 MWe co-gasification power plant based on inte-
grated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology, using lignite and refuse derived fuel (RDF), in the region of Western Macedonia
prefecture (WMP), Greece. The gasification block was based on the British Gas-Lurgi (BGL) gasifier, while the gas clean-up block was
based on cold gas purification.
The competitive advantages of co-gasification systems can be defined both by the fuel feedstock and production flexibility but also by
their environmentally sound operation. It also offers the benefit of commercial application of the process by-products, gasification slag
and elemental sulphur.
Co-gasification of coal and waste can be performed through parallel or direct gasification. Direct gasification constitutes a viable
choice for installations with capacities of more than 350 MWe. Parallel gasification, without extensive treatment of produced gas, is rec-
ommended for gasifiers of small to medium size installed in regions where coal-fired power plants operate.
The preliminary cost estimation indicated that the establishment of an IGCC RDF/lignite plant in the region of WMP is not profitable,
due to high specific capital investment and in spite of the lower fuel supply cost. The technology of co-gasification is not mature enough and
therefore high capital requirements are needed in order to set up a direct co-gasification plant. The cost of electricity estimated was not com-
petitive, compared to the prices dominating the Greek electricity market and thus further economic evaluation is required.
The project would be acceptable if modular construction of the unit was first adopted near operating power plants, based on parallel
co-gasification, and gradually incorporating the remaining process steps (gas purification, power generation) with the aim of eventually
establishing a true direct co-gasification plant.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: BGL, British Gas-Lurgi; CFB, circulating fluidised bed; CHP, combined heat and power; COS, carbonyl sulphide; DEC, delivered
equipment cost; HRSG, heat recovery steam generator; IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle; MDEA, methyl diethanol amine; MSW, municipal
solid waste; PPC, process plant cost; PPC S.A., Public Power Corporation S.A.; RES, renewable energy sources; RDF, refuse derived fuel; SCOT, shell
claus off-gas treatment; TCR, total capital requirement; TPC, total plant cost; TPI, total plant investment; WID, waste incineration directive; WMP,
Western Macedonia prefecture.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2106546637; fax: +30 2106527539.
E-mail address: koukouzas@techp.demokritos.gr (N. Koukouzas).

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.04.011
1264 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275
1. Introduction
In recent years, the quantity of solid wastes has
increased significantly in both industrialized and develop-
ing countries, raising the question of the sustainability of
disposal management (Kwak et al., 2006). This increase
in waste accumulation is due to the substantial increase
on energy demand and the consumption of natural
resources and goods, caused by continuous growth of
world population. These wastes need to be treated ade-
quately to prevent environmental problems and make pos-
sible a sustained development of modern society (Pinto
et al., 2003). At present, the investigation of alternative
techniques to solve the problem with the growing amount
of wastes within European countries is a research area of
high priority. The driving forces behind this priority are
the current EU legislations regarding the ban on the
landfilling of combustible wastes (Directive 1999/31/EC),
the regulation on emission limits from waste treatment
plants (Directive 2000/76/EC) and also the regulation on
renewable energy sources (RES) (Directive 2001/77/EC)
(Kakaras et al., 2005).
Currently, landfill with its many drawbacks is the pre-
ferred option in the EU and many other industrialised
countries. Within the waste management hierarchy, ther-
mal disposal, especially incineration, is a viable and proven
alternative (Malkow, 2004). However, the predominant
method, mass-burn grate incineration, has disadvantages
as well as particularly hazardous emissions and harmful
process residues (Kwak et al., 2006; Malkow, 2004). In
recent years, pyrolysis and gasification technologies have
emerged to address these issues and improve the energy
output. In addition, with the decrease in the availability
of energy resources, there is a renewed interest in innova-
tive ways to convert the existing reserves with more efficient
technologies that may lead to a lower impact on the envi-
ronment (Pinto et al., 2003). Both these two targets may
be reached with the application of gasification technology
to co-process coal mixed with wastes and/or biomass.
Wastes are generally difficult to process, because they
are heterogenous, which gives rise to fluctuations in qual-
ity, availability and composition (Murphy and McKeogh,
2004). Therefore, it is important to develop a versatile tech-
nology that can benefit from different fuel compositions to
reduce the problems of wastes availability and composition
variations. The use of coal or lignite could help to provide
stable gasification conditions and could prevent problems
due to seasonal fluctuations in waste quantities.
Concerning power generation, new generating technolo-
gies involving integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) provide a number of advantages over pulverised
fuel-fired power plants. These include improved thermal
efficiencies and lower emissions of SO2, NOx and CO2
per unit of electricity generated (Yuehong et al., 2006;
Chmielniak and Sciazko, 2003; Collot et al., 1999). Many
of the new systems are being designed to operate with a
wide range of fuels.
Within this context, the co-processing of biomass and
waste with coal offers a number of advantages. With
increasingly stringent environmental legislation having
been put in place (waste incineration directive, WID), dis-
posal by landfill has become undesirable. Biomass and
waste gasification/combustion are considered as CO2 neu-
tral (Collot et al., 1999). As current methods of incinera-
tion come under closer scrutiny, co-gasification with coal
or lignite is being perceived as helpful in reducing emissions
and CO2 discharges. As far as CO2 capture is concerned,
gasification will play a key role in the future (Valero and
Uson, 2006). Thus, benefits may be derived from the useful
consumption of otherwise problematic municipal, indus-
trial and agricultural wastes, as well as attenuating reliance
on premium fossil fuels. The amounts of these wastes,
whether in Greece or in most EU countries, are enough
to encourage the study of such a process.
The advantage of gasification over incineration is pri-
marily the better electrical generation efficiency of the
former (Murphy and McKeogh, 2004). More recently,
there have been further financial incentives for co-firing
and co-gasification, such as the requirements for increas-
ing the percentage of electricity generated from RES,
carbon taxes, the increasing cost of gate fees at landfill
sites and the ban on putrescible wastes going to landfills
(McIlveen-Wright et al., 2006). The economics of munici-
pal solid waste (MSW) and refuse derived fuel (RDF)
gasification in plants at a commercial scale is comparable
with that of incineration (De Filippis et al., 2004).
Energy recovery from waste may be an economically
attractive source of energy as part of an integrated waste
management plan.
2. Co-gasification technologies
The technology of co-gasification can result in very
clean and efficient power plants using a range of fuels,
but there are considerable economic, environmental and
technical challenges that have to be faced. Very few pro-
jects worldwide involve the co-gasification of coals with
biomass/waste materials at an industrial scale. The techni-
cal challenges in developing replicated turnkey co-gasifica-
tion plants are considerable, since there is no turnkey
supplier of co-gasification technology with associated
materials handling and power generation equipment
(DTI, 2002; Williams, 2000).
There is no simple answer to what advantages, technical
or economic, are offered by the co-utilization of waste
materials with coal. The partial replacement of coal with
waste and biomass materials can be introducing renewable
energy and thus resulting in environmental benefits. On the
other hand, coal/lignite can be regarded as being beneficial
because the security of supply of biomass and waste mate-
rials is uncertain, and the quality of the delivered fuel is
subject to only limited control. Combining biomass, solid
waste and coal overcomes the potential unreliability of bio-
mass, the potential longer term changes in waste quality
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275 1265

and the size limitation of a power plant using just waste or
biomass (Hotchkiss et al., 2002).
Co-gasification of coal with other kinds of fuels such as
wastes and biomass, is considered to be a promising tech-
nology to reduce CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions, even in
dealing with high ash coals, like the Greek lignite, and
has been extensively investigated (Valero and Uson, 2006;
Aznar et al., 2006; Yuehong et al., 2006; Pinto et al.,
2002, 2003; Liebner and Ulber, 2000; Collot et al., 1999;)
at bench and pilot scales.
Co-gasification of coal and solid wastes can be achieved
through parallel or direct gasification. Both technologies
are mainly still in a demonstration stage, while a few oper-
ate at commercial level. These technologies appear to hold
the most promising potential, concerning technical
improvements, compared to other power generation tech-
nologies based on solid fuels (Karg et al., 2000).
2.1. Parallel gasification
In this method, the produced syngas comes out from the
gasifier and is ducted, without extensive treatment, to con-
ventional pulverized coal-fired boilers, where it is burnt as
an auxiliary fuel along with coal (co-firing). The immediate
use of syngas in the boilers does not require feedstock dry-
ing and advanced fuel gas clean-up and therefore consider-
able savings in capital costs are realized, compared to
complete IGCC systems (Mory and Tauschitz, 2000). It
has to be mentioned that only solids are recovered from
the syngas stream in most of these installations. Usually,
the flowrate of syngas is lower, compared to the main fuel,
and further gas clean-up is not required. In Fig. 1, a simpli-
fied process flow diagram for the parallel gasification tech-
nology is depicted.
The parallel gasification technology does not provide the
ability of utilizing the produced synthesis gas for direct
power generation, since there is no gas purification unit.
On the other hand, it has a low capital investment and
potential shutdowns in the gasification process unit do
not result in a total shutdown of the entire thermal power
station. The heat content of solid wastes/biomass is trans-
ferred from the gasifier to the boiler in three forms, as sen-
sible heat, as chemical energy in the form of a low calorific
value gas and as finely divided char particulates that may
have escaped from the solids recovery.
Parallel gasification has been demonstrated successfully
at the Zeltweg power plant in Austria (BioCoComb pro-
ject), funded by the European Community Thermie Fund.

FLUE GAS
TREATMENT

LIGNITE

SOLID
WASTES

SYN GAS

BOILER
STEAM
GASIFIER

STEAM TURBINE

MILL CONDENSER

ASH
FEED WATER
PUMP

Fig. 1. Parallel gasification of coal/lignite and solid wastes.

1266 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275
A biomass gasifier for bark, wood chips and sawdust has
been installed at the 137 MWe pulverized-coal fired power
station in Zeltweg/Styria. According to the thermal capac-
ity of 10 MW, the produced gas substituted approximately
3% of the coal fired in the boiler. The separate gasifier was
realised in circulating fluidised bed (CFB) technology,
which guarantees even relatively low temperatures in all
parts of the gasifier to prevent slagging. The intense
motion of the bed material also favours attrition of the
biomass particles (Simader and Moritz, 2000). The CFB
reactor also guarantees a high flexibility to a wide range
of biofuel types. Via the hot gas duct the product gas is
led directly to the coal boiler, where the injected gas is
burned together with the coal by the present oxygen sur-
plus. The Zeltweg parallel co-gasification concept was
commissioned between 1997 and 1998 and operated at
commercial scale until 2002 when it was shut down because
electricity generation at the plant was too expensive and
there was an overcapacity in the area (Granatstein, 2002).
Nevertheless, its demonstration and commercial operation
has been considered as very successful, and it has been indi-
cated that gasifier operation played no part in the shutdown
decision.
Another example of parallel co-gasification is provided
by the installation at Kymijarvi CHP power plant in Lahti
(Finland), designed and supplied by Foster Wheeler, where
a 240 MWth boiler fired with hard coal, operated since
1976, has been retrofitted to a CFB gasifier, rated at 40
to 70 MWth, which can gasify wood chips, wood waste,
paper, cardboard, plastics, demolition wood, sawdust,
plastic waste and shredded tires. A cyclone is fitted down-
stream of the gasifier that directs solid particles back to the
bed. After dust removal, gas is fed directly to burners
located in the lower part of the combustion chamber,
where it replaces part of the coal. This installation has been
designed to gasify biomass with a moisture content up to
60% and therefore the gas quality is very low. The Kymi-
jarvi CHP plant produces electricity and district heat to
the Lahti city. The maximum power capacity is
167 MWe, and the maximum district heat production is
240 MW. The biomass gasifier was connected to the boiler
at the end of 1997. Concerning the gasification process
itself; the results have met expectations. The operating
experience of the gasifier during the years 1998–2003 has
been excellent (Nieminen, 2004). The stability of the main
boiler steam cycle has also been excellent. Moreover, the
changes in emissions were very small.
Operational experience from both of these installations
has shown that: it is possible to gasify biomass of very
diverse types; co-firing of syngas and coal does not cause
boiler combustion chamber slagging; biomass gasification
requires only a short residence time in the bed which means
a small reactor size and consequently low cost (Golec et al.,
2003); there is no need to cool and purify fuel gas and to
remove solids before supplying it to the combustion cham-
ber; and only minor modifications of the main boiler are
necessary.
Another successful co-gasification project is the Ruien
plant in Belgium, located at West Flanders. This plant is
basically a copy of the existing atmospheric CFB gasifier
in Lahti, Finland as also supplied by Foster Wheeler.
The gasifier was commissioned at the end of 2002 and
started commercial operation in January 2003. The gasifier
uses either wood chips originating from forestry or recycled
wood residues from the wood manufacturing industry. The
biomass fuel (between 40 and 80 MW of fuel input depend-
ing on moisture content) is gasified in the atmospheric CFB
gasifiers and then directly fired into one of the coal furnaces
of the plant. A low gas quality is quite sufficient and there-
fore no pre-drying or milling of the biomass and no hot gas
cleaning or gas cooling is necessary (Ryckmans and Van
den Spiegel, 2004). Specific investment costs are in the
range of 500–1000€/KWe (Jouret et al., 2005). The opera-
tional performance of the gasifier is satisfactory.
The Amer 9 co-gasification plant in Geertruidenberg
(The Netherlands) is also a very interesting example of gas-
ification where the fuel gas is co-fired in the main coal boi-
ler. In the original set-up of the Amer gas project, the fuel
(demolition wood) is gasified in a CFB gasifier (atmo-
spheric pressure, 850 °C). The fuel is pre-treated (size
reduced) to meet the gasifier specifications (size <50 mm,
moisture content <20%). After gasification the raw fuel
gas is cleaned in low-temperature gas clean up (baghouse
filter, scrubber), after which the clean gas is combusted in
the coal boiler via specially designed low calorific gas burn-
ers (Willeboer, 1998). Five percent of the total energetic
plant input responds to the co-firing of the demolition
wood. Features of the concept are: the relatively stringent
fuel constraints that have to be met and the relatively high
specific additional investment costs. An advantage of this
concept is that the main part of the fuel-based contami-
nants is separated from the gas before entering the coal-
fired boiler. This means that a wide range of fuels can be
co-fired in this concept, without causing applicable emis-
sion constraints or problems related to ash quality require-
ments. The application has recently turned to wood chips
as additional fuel input (Jounginger et al., 2006).
2.2. Direct gasification
In direct gasification, coal and solid wastes or biomass
are mixed and then fed to the gasification unit. The whole
process incorporates three mature technologies: gasifica-
tion, gas clean-up and combined cycle power generation.
The functional combination of these processes comprises
the so-called IGCC systems, as shown in Fig. 2.
Co-gasification with two main power generation
cycles, the Brayton cycle and the Rankine steam cycle,
has proved to be quite efficient in the power generation
sector. Moreover, the produced syngas can be converted
into useful chemical products of high additive value such
as hydrogen, methanol, sulphur, ammonia, synthetic nat-
ural gas and fertilizers (US Department of Energy, 2001).
At the same time, there is the ability of incorporating
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275 1267

PURIFIED

GASIFIER
SYNGAS
LIGNITE SYN GAS
SOLID TREATMENT
WASTES

AIR s2
H2
o2
ASH TRANSPORTATION FUELS
CHEMICALS
AIR
GAS TURBINE
SEPERATION
UNIT

HEAT RECOVERY
STEAM GENERATOR FLUE GASES

STEAM TURBINE

STEAM

Fig. 2. Integrated gasification combined cycle system.

advanced power generation technologies to the process,
such as fuel cells or reciprocating engines. IGCC installa-
tions are characterized by very low SO2 and NOx emis-
sions, the possibility of achieving very high efficiency in
accordance with gas turbine development, pure sulfur
recovery and solid waste products in the form of a glassy
slag (Golec et al., 2003).
The Eclogas IGCC power plant in Puertollano (Spain)
and the Nuon power plant in Buggenum (The Netherlands)
are the largest IGCC installations in Europe and they uti-
lize the entrained-flow gasification system with dry powder
feeding system. Puertollano uses a mixture of coal and
petroleum coke (50% w/w). Buggenum was commissioned
in 1993 running on natural gas; in 1994 it replaced its major
thermal input with syngas from coal. It is the first IGCC
power plant in Europe and its electric capacity comes up
to 250 MWe. Power generation is now governed by the net-
work requirement and not in base-load mode, as designed.
The fuel commonly used in Buggenum is a mixture of the
cheapest coals from the world market, which is also used
in the conventional power plants in The Netherlands (Rad-
tke et al., 2005). In 2002 it initiated biomass co-gasification
trials with a variety of waste fuels such as sewage sludge,
chicken litter and wood residues. It was proven to be tech-
nically viable. In March 2006, there was an official opening
of the biomass facilities for 30% w/w co-gasification. They
started running on wood dust, and demolition wood will be
added soon (Van der Drift, 2006).
BGL co-gasification of coal and solid wastes takes place
at the facilities of SVZ GCC/Methanol Plant at Schwarze
Pumpe GmbH in Germany and in Kentucky (USA), also
incorporating fuel cells apart from IGCC (US Department
of Energy, 1999). Both plants utilize the oxygen-blown,
moving-bed, slagging gasifier technology of British Gas
Lurgi (BGL) and are owned by Global Energy Inc., a leader
in direct gasification projects. This specific gasifier has been
designed and developed for coarse solid materials without
any limitation concerning the ash and moisture content,
whereas the produced ash of vitreous structure is well
within the limits imposed by the German waste manage-
ment regulations (German Ministry of the Environment,
2001). BGL gasifiers have the most operational experience
with fuels of widely differing mechanical properties. The
BGL gasifier has been selected for this present work.
The SVZ Schwarze Pumpe facility represents a major
investment in an innovative and efficient system for the
large-scale processing of a wide variety of solid and liquid
waste materials with heat recovery, power generation and
methanol production. The project is a true co-gasification
project with various waste streams and lignite (Malkow,
2004). Some of the co-gasification projects in Europe are
reviewed in Table 1, along with some additional data.
1268 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275
Table 1
Large co-gasification projects (DTI, 2002)
Plant Output/gasifier output
Amercentrale 9 (Netherlands) 600 MWe/85 MWth
Kymijarvi CHP plant (Lahti, Finland) 350 MWe/70 MWth
Zeltweg power plant (Austria) 137 MWe/10 MWth
SVZ GCC/Methanol Plant at Schwarze Pumpe 1 new BGL gasifier 7 old Lurgi
(Germany) Global Energy ownership fixed-bed gasifiers 2 entrained
gasifiers
Elcogas (Spain) 300 MWe
Berrenrath (Germany) Methanol from MSW and lignite
(tests only)
3. Case study for Western Macedonia
Taking into account the above available technologies, a
case study for WMP was carried out with regard to the
potential of establishing and operating a direct co-gasifica-
tion (IGCC) unit utilizing lignite and solid wastes in the
form of RDF. The selection of this specific geographical
region relies mainly on the presence of significant lignite
deposits, but also on the operation of an integrated solid
waste treatment system within this region.
The annual production of lignite in Greece is around
60 millions tons, out of which 48 million tons derive from
the coalfields of WMP. This advantage has been exploited
to a great extent, since 67% of the total power requirements
of Greece are generated within this region (Koukouzas
et al., 2004). The location of power stations, deposits and
lignite mines in WMP is presented in detail in Fig. 3.
The annual amount of municipal solid waste in WMP is
117,000 ton. The mass composition of MSW produced
within the region is presented in Table 2. Around 20% of
this quantity consists of non-combustible components,
which will be removed during RDF production (Solid
Waste Management of Western Macedonia S.A., 2004).
RDF was selected instead of MSW because of its better
quality characteristics, although the RDF production unit
increases considerably the total process plant cost (PPC).
The main process stages in the case of direct gasification
include fuel pre-treatment, gasification, syngas clean-up
and finally power generation. The gasifier feed consists of
a RDF and lignite mixture in the form of pellets with
75:25 mass proportions. This high RDF/lignite mass frac-
tion is feasible for utilization for direct BGL co-gasi-
fication, according to tests performed at the facilities of
SVZ Schwarze Pumpe during the THERMIE project
(CERTH/ISFTA, 2002). Taking into account the total
annual production of MSW, the installed power capacity
of the unit was calculated at around 30 MWe. The power
capacity estimation was also based upon the heating values
of the fuels and process efficiency.
The feedstock requirements concerning lignite, RDF
and oxygen and the by-products throughput, ash and ele-
Comments
Lurgi CFB gasifier using demolition wood which supplies
gas to the main boiler
Foster wheeler gasifier using a range of biomass. Again the
gas is co-fired
Austrian energy CFB biomass gasifier. Again the gas is co-
fired in the main boiler. Not in operation anymore
True co-gasification including lignite, waste plastics and
sewage sludge
70% petroleum coke, 30% coal by thermal input
High Temperature Winkler
mental sulphur, were calculated based upon the results
obtained from a US DOE/NETL report (NETL/Process
Engineering Division, 2000), after appropriate escalation.
The report deals with BGL gasifier IGCC base cases of
the same type as was selected for the case study performed.
The heat and mass balances in this report were performed
using ASPEN PLUS (Version 10.1) simulation models. The
proximate and ultimate analysis of RDF and lignite from
W. Macedonia and some technical data of the plant sce-
nario under evaluation are presented in Tables 3 and 4,
respectively. For this specific RDF/lignite co-gasification
concept, cold gas clean-up was selected instead of hot gas
clean-up, because the syngas produced from RDF contains
hazardous contaminants (HCl, H2S, heavy metals, alkalis,
etc.) that cannot be effectively removed by the ceramic can-
dle filters usually used for hot gas clean-up. The extensive
purification unit that was incorporated in the process is
capable of achieving the emissions limits imposed by regu-
lations (WID) and simultaneously the strict requirements
of the gas turbine, in order to avoid corrosion. A short
description of the main process steps follows.
3.1. Fuel pre-treatment and gasification (Gasification block)
A simplified process flow sheet of the entire process is
depicted in Fig. 4. The RDF production unit (1) consists
of standard equipment such as shredder, magnetic separa-
tors for metallic materials removal, classifier and screens
for inert materials removal, dryer, mixer, cooler and pelle-
tising press. MSW (stream 1) enters the fuel preparation
unit and at the pelletising process step, lignite is added
(stream 2) acting as a binder medium and hence producing
uniform RDF/lignite pellets with great mechanical
stability.
The feed mixture (stream 3), lignite/RDF pellets, is fed
into the top of the BGL gasifier (2) via a lock hopper sys-
tem where it is pressurized to the operating pressure of
about 27–30 bars and reacts while moving downward
through the gasifier. The BGL gasifier is a counter-current,
moving-bed, slagging gasifier. The reactor vessel is water
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275 1269

Fig. 3. The location of power stations, deposits and lignite mines in WMP (Koukouzas et al., 2004).

and refractory lined. The drying and reduction zone
temperature is from 40 to 700 °C. The gasification zone
temperature is approximately 700–1500 °C, whereas the
combustion zone temperature is around 1500–2000 °C.
The gasification medium, steam (stream 4) and oxygen
(stream 5), is injected through the bottom of the gasifier
via tuyere nozzles, whilst the raw syngas (stream 6) exits
from the top at approximately 500 °C. Ash is removed
from the bottom of the gasifier as molten slag through a
slag tap, then quenched in water and removed.
3.2. Syngas treatment and power generation (gas-clean up
block and power block)
Cooling of the produced synthesis gas via direct water
quench (4) results in condensation of the heavy hydrocar-
bons components, such as tars, oils and naphtha. These
compounds are then recovered in a separation unit (4)
and recirculated to the gasifier (stream 7). After additional
cooling and carbonyl sulphide (COS) hydrolysis (5), the
syngas is then driven to the cold gas clean-up unit, where
1270 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275

Table 2 The hot saturated mixture is burnt in the combustion

MSW composition in WMP (Solid Waste Management of Western chamber (11) of the gas turbine and the flue gases (stream
Macedonia S.A., 2004)
13) are then driven to the heat recovery steam generator
Component % (w/w) (HRSG) unit (12), where superheated steam is produced.
Organics 43 The produced steam (stream 14) is utilized for electricity
Paper 22 generation in a two-stage steam turbine system (13), and
Plastics 15
Aluminium 1
also for internal steam demand purposes within the overall
Iron 3.5 process. Power generation is accomplished by 67% in the
Inert 2 gas turbine and by 33% in the steam turbine. The overall
Glass 5 efficiency of the unit is 47%, while internal power consump-
Others 8.5 tion is up to 7.5% (CERTH/ISFTA, 2002). The produced
ash of vitreous structure, which contains non-combustible
Table 3
Proximate and ultimate analysis of lignite and RDF from WMP
feed compounds, is either hauled to landfills or stored for
(CERTH/ISFTA, 2002) potential utilization.
RDF Lignite
3.3. Economic analysis – assumptions
Proximate analysis (% w/w, raw basis)
Moisture 7.40 52.60
Ash 13.90 15.1 The aim of the economic analysis is to estimate the cost
Volatiles and fixed carbon 78.70 32.30 of purchasing and installing the process equipment, the
Ultimate analysis (% w/w, raw basis) total capital requirements and the electricity production
C 41.00 31.22 cost (€/kWh) for the IGCC plant. By calculating the eco-
H 5.80 2.90 nomics of the process being studied and comparing the
O 30.30 20.16 resultant cost of electricity to the prices within the Greek
N 0.60 0.80
electricity generating market, the potential profitability
S 0.20 0.66
can be assessed. A summary of the economic assumptions
Heating value (MJ/kg) is presented in Table 5.
LHV 18.30 7.00
HHV 20.50 8.80
3.4. Specific capital investment

Table 4 Capital costs for the RDF/lignite IGCC plant were esti-
Technical data of the IGCC plant mated using a combination of capacity factored and equip-
Feedstock requirements ment-based methods. Capacity factored estimations utilize
Lignite 3.36 ton/h the ratio of the capacity (flow rate, heat duty, etc.) of an
RDF 10.1 ton/h
Oxygen 0.2 m3/m3 of syngas
existing piece of equipment to the new equipment multi-
plied by the cost of the existing equipment, to estimate
Power generation
the cost of the new equipment. A scale-up factor particular
Gas turbine 159,192 MWh/y
Steam turbine 78,408 MWh/y to the equipment type was applied to the capacity ratio
Internal consumption 7.5% (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991; NREL, 1996). This
By-products
technique is used quite frequently to an accuracy of ±20–
Ash 12,300 ton/y 30%. All costs were calculated to instantaneous 2006
Elemental sulphur 330 ton/y Euros. Where necessary, costs were corrected to 2006 basis
Efficiency
using the Marshall and Swift equipment cost indices,
HHV 45% published in chemical engineering magazine. The major
LHV 47% delivered equipment costs (DEC) were multiplied by a
factor to arrive at the process plant cost (PPC). Table 6
lists the factors used to determine PPC.
the methyl diethanol amine (MDEA) (6) and shell claus PPC is converted to total plant cost (TPC) initially and
off-gas (SCOT) (7) methods are used in sequence to separate then to total plant investment (TPI), after adjustment for
sulphur compounds, chlorides and ammonia, while elemen- interest and inflation during the construction period.
tal sulphur to be marked is reclaimed simultaneously Lastly, total capital requirement (TCR) is estimated.
(stream 9) from the Claus unit (8). Afterwards, the clean TCR is used so that realistic estimates of constructing an
syngas (stream 10) is preheated and resaturated (9) and RDF/lignite IGCC plant can be calculated. The assump-
after the addition of nitrogen (stream 11), derived from tions used for the above conversions are presented in Table
the cryogenic air separation unit (3), is fed to the gas turbine 7, whereas the total capital requirement estimation for the
(10). Nitrogen is added in order to increase the volu- IGCC plant is shown in Table 8.
metric flow though the gas turbine and thus increase power For the case of Western Macedonia, the specific capi-
output. tal investment for the 30 MWe IGCC plant came up to
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275 1271

Gasification Gas Clean-up Block

Block 4 10

6 8

8
6 7

2 7 9
5
2
9
1 3

Steam
12
12
1 4
11

Air 13
5

11 `
14
3 10

Air
Power 13

Block

Fig. 4. IGCC process flow chart: (1) Fuel preparatiion; (2) BGL gasifier; (3) Air separation unit; (4) Gas quenching – cooling and Gas – liquid separation;
(5) Gas cooling and COS hydrolysis; (6) MDEA unit; (7) SCOT unit; (8) Claus unit; (9) Gas preheating and saturation; (10) Gas turbine; (11) Combustion
chamber; (12) HRSG unit; (13) Steam turbine.

Table 5 Table 7
Economic analysis default values Capital cost assumptions
Parameter Value Cost component Factor used
Currency basis €2006 Process plant cost (PPC)
Project life 20 y Engineering and supervision 10% of PPC
Book life 20 y Contingency 15% of PPC
Construction period 4y
Total plant cost (TPC)
Nominal interest rate 10%
Adjustment for interest and inflation Calculated
Construction interest rate 5%
Annual inflation rate 3% Total plant investment (TPI)
Prepaid royalties 0.5% of TPI
Catalyst and chemical inventory Calculated
Table 6 Start-up costs 2.5% of TPI
Cost factors used for calculation of PPC Spare parts 0.5% of TPC
Cost component Factor used Working capital 1% of TPI
Land Calculated
Process water systems 7% of DEC
Yard improvements – Civils 9% of DEC Total capital requirement (TCR)
Piping 7% of DEC
Instrumentation and control 2.5% of DEC
Electrical 8% of DEC
to examine the effects of scale. As noted from Fig. 6, the
3.867€/KWe. The contribution of plant components to specific capital investment for units smaller than 350 MWe
overall delivered equipment cost (DEC) is shown in is not competitive enough compared to the cost of conven-
Fig. 5. The BGL gasifier and the HRSG-steam turbine unit tional power stations utilizing solid fuels, which comes up to
exceed 50% of the total DEC. The air separation unit 1000–1200€/KWe (McMullan et al., 2001).
also has a great contribution to DEC. For this reason, it
is recommended to erect small-scale gasification plants 3.5. Cost of electricity
(<100 MWe) within large industrial areas, in order to share
utilities without bearing additional capital costs. The cost of electricity was estimated using the bus-bar
The specific capital investment per installed capacity cost method by dividing the total annual production cost
(MWe) was then calculated, as shown in Fig. 6, in order by the annual electricity output (Ntelkis, 2000). No profit
1272 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275

Table 8
Total capital requirement estimation for the 30 MWe IGCC plant
400 MW
Cost component Cost (k€2006)
RDF production 4224 300 MW
BGL gasifier 19,080
Gas/liquid separation and treatment 4048 200 MW
Gas cooling/gas saturation 3446
MDEA unit 1656
100 MW
Claus-SCOT unit 1253
Gas Turbine 4879
HRSG – Steam turbine unit 15,702 50 MW
Air Separation Unit 10,291
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Delivered equipment cost (DEC) 64,579
Specific capital investment cost (Euros/KW)
Process water systems 4520
Yard improvements – civils 5812 Fig. 6. Specific capital investment cost per installed MW.
Piping 4520
Instrumentation and control 1614
Electrical 5166 Table 9
Process plant cost (PPC) 86,211 Operating and maintenance assumptions
Engineering and supervision 8621 Consumable materials prices
Contingency 12,930
Lignite cost 10.27€/ton
Total plant cost (TPC) 107,762 Process water cost 0.21€/ton
Adjustment for interest and inflation 3200 MDEA solvent cost 1.60€/ton
Total plant investment (TPI) 110,962 Ash treatment cost 8€/ton
Prepaid royalties 554 Number of shifts 3 in rotation
Catalyst and chemical inventory 35 Labour requirements 20 persons/shift
Start-up costs 2774 Average annual salary 35,290€/person
Spare parts 538 Maintenance costs 2.2% of TPC
Working capital 1109 Supervision and clerical 10% of labour cost
Land 36 labour
Miscellaneous operating 20% of
Total capital requirement (TCR) 116,008 costs (maintenance + labour + supervision) costs
Specific Capital Investment Cost 3867€/kWe Capacity factor 90% (7920 h/y)
(Availability)

ASU RDF production

16% 7% BGL gasifier 3.5.1. Fuel cost
29% The fuel cost is calculated using the data below:
HRSG-Steam
Turbine
24% Gas/Liquor Plant efficiency = 47% (LHV)
separation Lignite LHV = 7 MJ/kg
6%
Lignite cost = 10.27€/ton
Gas Turbine
8%
Claus-SCOT
Gas Cooling/ The lignite fuel cost came up to 0.011€/kWh. No cost
MDEA Saturation element or gate-fee charges were taken into account for
2%
3% 5%
RDF, because it was considered to be a fuel produced
Fig. 5. Breakdown of DEC. within the plant. Therefore, the fuel costs are very low as
shown in Fig. 7.
element is taken into account during the implementation of Fuel costs Consumables
this analysis. This method is expressed by the equation: Overhead costs 0.97% 0.34%
5.54%
C ¼ f½i  ð1 þ iÞd =ð1 þ iÞd  1  IU þ focg  1=h Supervision Ash treatment
1.33% 0.62%
þ ðvoc þ fcÞ ð1Þ
where C, electricity production cost (€/kWh); IU, specific Labour costs
13.30%
capital investment cost (€/kW); foc, fixed annual operating
cost (€/kW); voc, variable annual operating cost (€/kWh);
fc, fuel cost (€/kWh); h, annual operating hours (h); d, pro- Capital cost
Maintenance
ject life (y); i, nominal interest rate. 65.81%
12.10%
The operating and maintenance assumptions are pre-
sented in Table 9. Fig. 7. Breakdown of total electricity production cost.
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275 1273

3.5.2. Variable operating costs

Cost of electricity (Euros/kWh)

0.08
Variable operating costs include expenses directly asso-
0.07
ciated with the manufacturing operation and they are
0.06
dependent on the amount of product produced. For the 0.05
case of the lignite/RDF IGCC plant, the variable operating 0.04
cost items include consumables and ash treatment costs, as 0.03
shown in Table 10. 0.02
0.01

3.5.3. Fixed operating costs 0

0 100 200 300 400 500
Fixed operating costs are expenses that are practically
Installed capacity (MWe)
constant from year to year and do not vary widely with
changes in production rate. The fixed operating costs Fig. 8. Cost of electricity versus installed capacity.
include maintenance, labour, supervision and overhead
costs. The sum of these costs is presented in Table 11. kWh, whereas for a 400 MWe plant the production cost
Based upon this method, a 0.0926€/KWh unit electricity becomes almost equal to the cost of the lignite-fired power
production cost was calculated for the 30 MWe RDF/lig- stations of Public Power Corporation S.A (PPC S.A.). If
nite IGCC plant. The production cost breakdown is shown environmental benefits are taken into consideration and
in Fig. 7. adjusted to that cost by proper integrated algorithm, the
The selling price of electricity in Greece, from power cost of electricity would become even less compared to that
generated from RES and CHP installations and supplied of the conventional lignite-fired plants.
to the main grid, comes up to 0.0684€/kWh for low, med-
ium and high voltage (Regulatory Authority of Energy, 4. Discussion – conclusions
2006). The cost of electricity for the case examined was
0.0926€/kWh and therefore further economic evaluation For the case of Western Macedonia, the high capital
is required. The corresponding selling price for decentra- investment cost of IGCC systems can be overcome by uti-
lised power generation from RES, not connected to the lizing the modular construction ability for this kind of
grid (mainly the Greek Islands), is 0.0846€/kWh, which installation, based on parallel gasification technology.
makes the investment more attractive and competitive, Firstly, only the gasifier can be constructed and fed with
but the establishment of such a plant in isolated regions wastes and lignite. The produced syngas, with minor treat-
will be confined by logistics. The main factor that renders ment, can be fed to the thermal power stations of PPC
the 30 MWe project non-profitable is the high value of spe- S.A., located at WMP, as an auxiliary fuel during low
cific capital investment cost. A considerable diversification capacity demand or as a fuel for start-up purposes. It can
in the economic analysis is observed by increasing the also be utilized by the PPC S.A. power stations in cases
installed capacity, as depicted in Fig. 8. where the lignite quality is very poor and outside the
For a unit with installed capacity greater than 200 MWe, required limits. By these means, significant amounts of
the resultant unit electricity production cost is 0.0366€/ petroleum oil can be saved or substituted. thus resulting
in great capital savings.
Table 10
This is the most reasonable option to adopt as an initial
Variable annual operating costs
stage, since there are still uncertainties and technical barri-
Consumables Cost (€/y) ers in the IGCC technology that have been observed in
Process water 25,232 their operation. Another driver towards this direction is
MDEA Solvent 26,400 the seasonal variation in waste fuel quantity and quality.
Catalyst and chemicals 3025
An installation with the calculated RDF/lignite fuel frac-
Sub total 54,657 tion (75/25 w/w) will be at high risk and therefore the lim-
ited capacity factor constitutes another constraint.
Ash treatment 98,736
Then, by optimizing and gaining know-how on the gas-
Total 153,393 ifier operation, the syngas clean-up unit can be developed
and added. Thus, the ability to utilize syngas as a fuel in
combined cycle/gas engines/fuel cell systems or as raw
Table 11 material for the chemical industry is provided. This will
Fixed annual operating costs
gradually turn the parallel co-gasification project into a
Cost component Cost (€/yr) direct, independent co-gasification project. Concerning
Maintenance 2,370,000 the environmental benefits, the operation of an IGCC unit
Labour 2,117,400 in the region of Western Macedonia will contribute to the
Supervision and clerical labour 211,740
Miscellaneous operating costs 939,828
reduction of CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions, compared to a
conventional combustion unit utilizing lignite of the same
Total 5,638,968
quality.
1274 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275
Electricity production or CHP production remain the
most likely area for the application of co-gasification.
The lowest investment cost per unit of electricity generated
is the use of the gas in an existing large power station (par-
allel gasification). This has been done in several large boil-
ers, often with the gas fired alongside the main fuel and it
seems to be the best way of applying co-gasification, espe-
cially for small-scale gasification units and preferably as an
initial stage. The option allows a comparatively small ther-
mal output of gas to be used with the same efficiency as the
main fuel in the boiler, as a large steam turbine can be used.
These findings are in agreement with previous results (Hot-
chkiss et al., 2002) and are supported by the successful
operation of the demonstration and commercial projects
that have been previously discussed.
The above technical considerations and the high cost of
electricity that was estimated during the case study for
WMP indicate some of the incentives for a large size power
plant. Labour requirements per unit of installed capacity
provide yet another driver towards large unit size. High
efficiency IGCC power plants are therefore almost always
in the size range of several hundreds of MWe. At smaller
capacities, reciprocating engines can become relatively
more attractive compared to rotating turbines.
However, the available MSW capacity in WMP does not
provide the option of establishing a large unit. Efforts
should be taken in order to examine other potential waste
fuels such as sewage sludge and woody biomass. These
efforts should definitely be based on trial tests, and state
financial support is a prerequisite towards this direction.
If many sources of waste fuel feedstocks for IGCC systems
are guaranteed, the establishment of a large station relying
on co-gasification with lignite would be an attractive
option to examine.
An economic factor that may confine this option is the
obligation to monitor emissions, since the installation will
be subject to the WID. Extra costs to achieve the limits
imposed by the directive, for syngas and flue gas treatment,
are not necessary since the equipment selected for the pro-
posed scenario has proved to be very efficient in reducing
hazardous pollutants to very negligible amounts. This also
justifies the high capital investment cost that was calcu-
lated. It is assumed that the expenses for the operation of
the monitoring system will be counterbalanced by the
potential benefits from the selling of the process by-prod-
ucts. Sulphur is a raw material for the chemical industry
and the vitrified slag has many potential applications in
the construction and cement industry (lightweight aggre-
gate, cement additive, paving blocks, etc.).
Co-gasification involving solid waste and coal does not
appear to be of significant interest worldwide. There are
still a few technical matters that have to be solved, such
as the cost-effective syngas cleaning and the gas turbine
modifications for utilizing the syngas. In general, the costs
of a process decrease as more units are built and experience
is gained. A learning factor may be observed, which is a
fixed percentage reduction in cost as the cumulative instal-
lation of plants doubling. Co-gasification is handicapped
by the typical characteristics of a new technology: high
capital costs, high labour and low reliability. These are
additional reasons why economic analyses cannot use data
based on experience and always rely on the costs for build-
ing the first plant, which almost always make investments
look unattractive.
The increasing costs of conventional waste management
and disposal options and the trend, in most developed
countries, to divert an increasing fraction of mixed organic
waste materials from landfill disposal, for environmental
and legislative reasons, will make the investment in waste
to power projects increasingly attractive.
In the medium term, coal, biomass, solid wastes and
mainly the combination of them will constitute the main
feedstock fuels for gasification systems. The need for
extensive recycling, the stricter environmental regulations,
and the relatively high availability of coal deposits in
conjunction with the crude oil resources shortage do
not allow any other option. Especially in Greece, relying
on the domestic lignite deposits, the innovative power
technologies of the 21st century can be applied directly
and effectively to the energy and waste management
system.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the European Commission
for providing partial financial support for this work, under
the project THERMIE – Type A (SF/08/98/DE). Mr. Kli-
mantos of CERTH/ISFTA is also acknowledged for his
valuable contribution.
References
Aznar, M.P., Caballero, M.A., Sancho, J.A., Frances, E., 2006. Plastic
waste elimination by co-gasification with coal and biomass in
fluidised bed with air in pilot plant. Fuel Processing Technology 87,
409–420.
CERTH/ISFTA, 2002. Co-gasification of coal and wastes for power
generation, THERMIE-SF/08/98/DE, Final Report.
Chmielniak, T., Sciazko, M., 2003. Co-gasification of biomass and coal for
methanol synthesis. Applied Energy 74, 393–403.
Collot, A.-G., Zhuo, Y., Dugwell, D.R., Kandiyoti, R., 1999. Co-pyrolysis
and co-gasification of coal and biomass in bench-scale fixed-bed and
fluidised bed reactors. Fuel 78, 667–679.
De Filippis, P., Borgianni, C., Paolucci, M., Pochetti, F., 2004. Prediction
of syngas quality for two-stage gasification of selected waste feed-
stocks. Waste Management 24, 633–639.
Department of Trade and Industry, 2002. Technology status report No.
17, Waste/Biomass Co-gasification with Coal, London.
German Ministry for the Environment, 2001. Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety, Ablagerungsverordnung, Berlin.
Golec, T., Rakowski, J., Swirski, J., 2003. Projections of Technological
Progress in Hard Coal, Lignite and Gas Fired Power Plants and their
Environmental Impact. Institute of Power Engineering Publications,
Warsaw.
Granatstein, D.L., 2002. Case study on BioCoComb Biomass Gasification
Project Zeltweg Power Station, Austria, IEA Bioenergy Agreement-
Task 36.
 N. Koukouzas et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 1263–1275
Hotchkiss, R., Livingston, W., Hall, M., 2002. Waste/biomass co-
gasification with coal, Report No. COAL R216, DTI/Pub URN 02/
867, London.
Jounginger, M., de Wit, M., Faaij, A., 2006. IEA Bionergy Task 40,
Country Report for the Netherlands-Update 2006.
Jouret, N., Helsen, L., Van den Bulck, E., 2005. Study of the wood gasifier
at the power plant of electrabel-ruien. In: Proceedings of the European
Combustion Meeting.
Kakaras, E., Grammelis, P., Agraniotis, M., Derichs, W., Schiffer, H.P.,
Maier, J., Hilber, T., 2005. Solid recovered fuel as coal substitute in the
electricity generation sector. Thermal Science International Scientific
Journal 9 (2).
Karg, J., Haupt, G., Zimmerman, G., 2000. Optimized IGCC cycles for
future applications, in: Gasification Technology Conference, San
Francisco.
Koukouzas, N., Kakaras, E., Grammelis, P., 2004. The lignite electricity-
generating sector in Greece: current status and future prospects.
International Journal of Energy Research 28, 785–798.
Kwak, T.-H., Maken, S., Lee, S., Park, J-W., Min, B., Yoo, Y.D., 2006.
Environmental aspects of gasification of Korean municipal solid waste
in a pilot plant. Fuel 85, 2012–2017.
Liebner, W., Ulber, D., 2000. MPG-Lurgi multipurpose gasification:
application in gas-gasification. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Gasification
Technologies Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Malkow, T., 2004. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification
technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW
disposal. Waste Management 24, 53–79.
McIlveen-Wright, D.R., Pinto, F., Armesto, L., Caballero, M.A., Aznar,
M.P., Cabanillas, A., Huang, Y., Franco, C., Gulyurtlu, I., McMu-
llan, J.T., 2006. A comparison of circulating fluidised bed combustion
and gasification power plant technologies for processing mixtures of
coal, biomass and plastic waste. Fuel Processing Technology 87, 793–
801.
McMullan, J.T., Williams, B.C., McCahey, S., 2001. Strategic consider-
ations for clean coal R&D. Energy Policy 29, 441–452.
Mory, J., Tauschitz, K., 2000. BioCoComb-gasification of biomass and
co-combustion of the gas in a PF boiler in Zeltweg power plant. The
use of Coal in Mixture with Waste and Residues II, In: Conference
proceedings, 145-157, Gottbus.
Murphy, J.D., McKeogh, E., 2004. Technical, economic and environ-
mental analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste.
Renewable Energy 29, 1043–1057.
US Department of Energy/N.E.T.L./Process Engineering Division, 2000.
BGL Gasifier IGCC Base Cases, PED-IGCC-98-004, Washington
DC.
1275
Nieminen M., 2004. Technology brief: fluidised bed gasification, gas
cleaning, and fuel gas utilization systems, IEA Bioenergy Agreement-
Task 33.
U.S. Department of Energy/./N.R.E.L., 1996. Cost and performance
analysis of biomass-based integrated gasification combined-cycle
power systems, NREL/TP-430-21657, Colorado.
Ntelkis, K., 2000. Electric Power Production Cost. National Technical
University, Electric Power Department, Athens, in Greek.
Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D., 1991. Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Pinto, F., Franco, C., Andre, R.N., Miranda, M., Gulyurtlu, I., Cabrita,
I., 2002. Co-gasification study of biomass mixed with plastic wastes.
Fuel 81, 291–297.
Pinto, F., Franco, C., Andre, R.N., Tavares, C., Dias, M., Gulyurtlu, I.,
Cabrita, I., 2003. Effect of experimental conditions on co-gasification
of coal, biomass and plastic wastes with air/steam mixtures in a
fluidized bed system. Fuel 82, 1967–1976.
Radtke, K.R., Battensby, D., Marsico, C., 2005. Renaissance of gasifi-
cation based on cutting edge technologies, VGB PowerTech, 9/2005.
Regulatory Authority of Energy, 2006. Schedule of Rates for Electricity
from Co-generation and Renewable Energy Sources, Athens (in Greek).
Ryckmans, Y., Van den Spiegel, 2004. Biomass gasification and use of
syngas as an alternative fuel in a Belgian coal-fired boiler. Technology
Brief.
Simader, G., Moritz, G., 2000. Analysis Report of Power Plant Zeltweg.
The Austrian Energy Agency, Vienna.
Solid Waste Management of Western Macedonia S.A., 2004. General
Data on Integrated Solid Waste Treatment System of Western
Macedonia, Kozani (in Greek).
US Department of Energy, 1999. Kentucky Pioneer Energy IGCC,
Program Update, Washington DC.
US Department of Energy, 2001. Clean Coal Technology, Report No. 21,
Washington DC.
Valero, A., Uson, S., 2006. Oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass in an
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant. Energy 31,
1643–1655.
Van der Drift, B., 2006. Country Report-The Netherlands, IEA-Task 33,
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.
Willeboer, W., 1998. The Amer demolition wood gasification project.
Biomass and Bioenergy 15, 245–249.
Williams, C.B., 2000. In: Workshop Proceedings: Profit from Gasification,
Report No. COAL R197, DTI/Pub URN 00/1079, London.
Yuehong, Z., Hao, W., Zhihong, X., 2006. Conceptual design and
simulation study of a co-gasification technology. Energy Conversion
and Management 47, 1416–1428.