Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A comparison of steam and oxygen fed biomass gasification through a T

techno-economic-environmental study
Ahmed AlNoussa, Gordon McKaya, Tareq Al-Ansaria,b,
⁎

a
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
b
Division of Engineering Management and Decision Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Economically, fossil fuels remain the main source of energy despite their high emissions of greenhouse gases.
Biomass gasification However, biomass, a renewable fuel with CO2 neutrality, has experienced widespread attention as a potential
Value-added products contributor to sustainable development of the energy sector. Gasification is an important thermochemical
Gasifiying agent process that converts biomass feedstock into H2-rich combustible gases, which are favoured by wide downstream
Enviro-economic
applications. The use of pure steam or oxygen as a gasifying agent is preferred to increase the yield of com-
Pareto analysis
bustible gases. Consequently, hydrogen is utilised as an important intermediary in the generation of value-added
products such as urea, fuels and power. This study compares the biomass gasification using oxygen-only and
steam-only gasifying agents. Moreover, the study examines a poly-generation system that consumes biomass
feedstock of multiple sources to produce high grade Fisher-Tropsch liquids, methanol, urea, and power. To
achieve this aim, four Aspen Plus simulation flowsheets are developed considering both gasifiying agents and
compared utilising the built-in economic and environmental capabilities. The results obtained from the eco-
nomic and environmental evaluation demonstrate the excellence of steam-only biomass gasification in providing
profitable and cleaner products. The methanol production using steam gasification is the most economical so-
lution with a net profit per input of $0.12 per kg of biomass input and the lowest emissions pathway with 0.68 kg
of CO2-e per biomass input. The relative nature of the results can offer diverse perspectives depending on the
market situation of the products. Consequently, analysing the results relative to production capacity, power
generation using steam gasification achieves a net profit approximated at $0.80 per kg of product, whilst me-
thanol production using steam gasification remains the lowest environmental impact solution with 2.32 kg of
CO2-e per output product.

1. Introduction
There is a global desire to expand the energy sector to include
cleaner sources of energy, primarily due to the global increase in energy
demand, continued exploitation of finite fossil fuel resources and re-
sulting impact on the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions. Biomass, a renewable fuel with CO2 neutrality, can contribute
towards the development of a larger and cleaner energy sector.
Different technologies exist to convert biomass into syngas, including
those that are based on mechanical, biochemical and thermochemical
methods. Combustion, pyrolysis, gasification and liquefaction are
classified as thermochemical methods. Gasification, among these
methods, is marked as a prominent route for generating a clean and less
polluting intermediate gas for high efficiency power generation.
Animal, food and wood waste, and municipal solid waste are some
examples from several types of biomass wastes are converted through
gasification processes to synthesis gas consisting primarily of hydrogen
(H2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
water (H2O). The type of biomass waste, gasifier and gasification agent
affects the composition of syngas derived from biomass gasification.
Multiple gasification agents including steam, oxygen, air, and oxygen-
enriched air can be utilised for the gasification process resulting in a
different composition of the produced syngas [1]. In previous work
conducted by the authors [2], the gasification of biomass utilising
oxygen/steam as gasifying agent was explored economically and en-
vironmentally in the production of urea, methanol, liquid fuels and
power. The results demonstrated that the methanol production route
was the most economically viable, and that the production of urea was

⁎
Corresponding author at: Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha,
Qatar.
E-mail address: talansari@hbku.edu.qa (T. Al-Ansari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112612
Received 8 October 2019; Received in revised form 12 February 2020; Accepted 13 February 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. AlNouss, et al.
the cleanest from an environmental perspective. Extending previous
work, the current study compares biomass gasification using oxygen-
only and steam-only gasifying agents to demonstrate the influence of
the gasification medium in deriving sustainable value-added products.
Recent scientific literature investigating different gasification media
includes an assessment of different aspects of the concept. Steam gasi-
fication technology offers a greater H2 to CO ratio and H2 yield because
of the high reactivity between steam and hydrocarbon. These en-
dothermic reactions make steam-only gasification attractive in terms of
thermal efficiency [3]. Hosseini et al. (2012) applied an energy and
exergy analysis on a biomass gasifier utilising sawdust feed and in-
dividually air and steam as gasifying agents. A parametric study has
been adapted to assess the effect of the operating and design factors on
the performance of the gasification system. The results indicated higher
exergy and energy efficiencies for air fed biomass gasification than
steam [4]. Sharma and Sheth (2016) experimentally evaluated the ef-
fect of injecting saturated steam into a downdraft gasifier running
under steady state conditions of air gasification. Steam injection en-
hanced the H2 yield in the producer gas [3]. de Sales et al. (2017) ex-
plored biomass gasification using air, saturated steam with oxygen, and
saturated steam with air. Material balance was performed to estimate
the steam to biomass ratio (SBR) and the equivalence ratio (ER) in order
to identify the flow and type of the gasifying agent and control the
consumption of biomass in the downdraft gasifier. The results indicated
that H2 yield and the lower heating value (LHV) of producer gas could
significantly increase with the addition of steam. The optimum ER was
estimated at 0.412 and the optimum SBR was estimated between 0.495
and 1.032 [5]. Cerone et al. (2017) investigated the updraft gasification
of biomass to produce syngas and pyrolysis oil under ten different
conditions of air, oxygen and steam flowrates. The results indicated an
increase in the H2:CO ratio when steam is utilised as a co-agent in the
gasification. Moreover, the addition of steam lowered the average
temperature in the gasifier which provided further stabilisation for the
process and shifted the process far from ash melting point [6]. Lv et al.
(2007) examined the application of a downdraft self-heated gasifier
with char as the catalyst to evaluate the production of H2 from oxygen/
steam and air biomass gasification. The results demonstrated an im-
provement in the concentration of H2 and LHV of the syngas for the
oxygen/steam case over air gasification [7]. Huynh and Kong (2013)
investigated the gasification of three different biomass feedstock using
steam and oxygen-enriched air. The study evaluated the addition of
pure oxygen to air before mixing with steam. The results indicated an
increase in H2 production of approximately 32%, 47% and 70% for seed
corn, maple-oak and pine respectively, when 40% of oxygen is injected.
In addition, the LHV increased by 47% for the feedstock analysed [8].
Similarly, Thanapal et al. (2012) evaluated the gasification of dairy
biomass in an enriched oxygen medium, exploring the effect of ER, SBR
and enriched air mixture on the performance of the fixed bed gasifier.
The results indicated a peak in CO2 production and a decrease in CO
yield with the oxygen content increase in the gasifying medium. Fur-
thermore, the increase in ER demonstrated a decrease in the higher
heating value of syngas [9].
Gasification via fluidised bed reactors are widely utilised for their
comparatively low operating temperature typically at 900 °C, high
specific capacity and excellent temperature distribution. They demon-
strate feasibility for the production of heat and/or electricity from
biomass gasification. In the case of syngas production, pressurised
fluidised bed gasification reveals high benefits for downstream high-
pressure applications such as integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) systems and Fischer–Tropsch (FT) Synthesis [10]. Kim et al.
(2016) studied the generation of FT diesel from biomass using a dual
fluidised bed gasifier. A biomass-to-liquid (BTL) pilot-plant process
involving gasifier, syngas cleaning and compressing units and an FT
unit, was investigated for an integrated operation. The results demon-
strated the potential for biomass in the production of diesel as alter-
native automotive fuel [11]. Rafati et al. (2017) analysed the economic
2
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
costs and thermal efficiency of FT liquid fuels generation. The effect of
FT catalyst type, co-feeding of natural gas and biomass, efficiency of
CO2 removal and H2 to CO ratio was studied. The results demonstrated
thermal efficiencies between 41.3% and 45.5% using biomass gasifi-
cation processes and approximately $28 per gigajoule of FT liquid fuels
[12]. Flórez-Orrego et al. (2019) applied a systematic approach to as-
sess the exergy and energy integration of conventional and alternatives
ammonia production plants. The study investigated the advantages and
challenges of various exergy resources consumption. The exergy effi-
ciencies of ammonia production from biomass and natural gas indicated
41.3% and 65.8%, respectively. Despite the low efficiency of biomass-
based urea, higher revenues could be achieved through replacing
completely the natural gas [13]. Carpentieri et al. (2005) conducted a
life cycle analysis on an biomass-integrated gasification combined cycle
(BIGCC). The results highlighted the advantages of biomass gasification
in reducing GHG emissions and the depletion of natural resources [14].
Similarly, Li et al. (2018) studied the optimization of a BIGCC system
based on life cycle assessment. The optimization comprises three cri-
teria; CO2 emission reduction, and cost and energy savings, where the
overall performance indicator is achieved through Technique for Order
of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS). The optimal
results were obtained when following electric load (FEL) strategy is
operated with power output of 1572.8 and wood pellet biomass feed-
stock. The achieved objective values are 0.101, 0.271, 0.498, and 0.867
for energy saving, cost saving, emission reduction and overall perfor-
mance indicator, respectively [15]. Anderson and Lundgren (2014)
performed a techno-economic study to evaluate the production of am-
monia from an integrated biomass gasification system within existing
pulp and paper mill. The production process was first simulated using
Aspen Plus software and a process integration model was analysed and
compared with a stand-alone production case. The results indicated
improvement in the energy and economics performance of the in-
tegrated model over the sand-alone case. However, both cases de-
monstrated a high selling price of ammonia to ensure economic viabi-
lity in the production process [16]. Anderson et al. (2014) also
performed a similar techno-economic evaluation comparing the pro-
duction of methanol. The comparison was conducted for three scenarios
of pressurised entrained flow gasifier (PEFG), stand-alone plant and the
co-integration of PEFG and a black liquor gasifier. The scenario with a
PEFG was concluded to be the most beneficial solution from future
market economic perspective with enhanced plant efficiency of nearly
7% over the normal operation. The co-integration scenario achieved the
best alternative under current market conditions [17].
With the growing efforts to establish alternative pathways for H2
production, gasification as an effective thermochemical process has the
potential to produce H2-rich syngas from biomass waste. This H2-rich
syngas can be utilised for synthesis reactions and power generation. H2
is a clean fuel with a high calorific value the can be generated chemi-
cally through several processes including methanol and ethanol steam
reforming, biomass gasification and ion exchange membranes.
However, 90% of the total H2 production is currently generated from
natural gas reforming. [18]. Due to rising concerns related to global
warming and depletion of finite energy resources, H2 is classified as an
important future fuel [3]. Shayan et al. (2018) thermodynamically in-
vestigated the generation of H2 from biomass gasification while uti-
lising different gasifying media. Air, oxygen-enriched air, oxygen and
steam were used as gasification agents to assess the biomass conversion.
The results demonstrated higher H2 content with the utilisation of
steam, oxygen, oxygen-enriched air and air as media, respectively [1].
Detchusananard et al. (2018) studied the performance of biomass ga-
sification and the CO2 removal process as integrated system to product
H2-rich syngas. The H2 content in the produced syngas was found to
increase with the gasification temperature. The exergy efficiency of the
integrated system based on H2 production was found to increase as the
ratio of CO2 to C increases [19]. Okajima et al. (2007) examined the
production of H2 through the steam gasification of food waste. The
A. AlNouss, et al.
production rate was accelerated through the manipulation of the pro-
cess temperature and pressure and the molar water-carbon ratio in the
waste. The experimental results demonstrated agreement with the
calculated equilibrium mole fractions of H2 for a wide range of process
conditions [20]. Ahmed and Gupta (2010) developed a lab scale ex-
perimental setup to study the syngas characteristics resulting from the
gasification and pyrolysis of food waste. The results yielded higher H2,
syngas and energy yields compared to pyrolysis [21]. Other studies
considered an integrated system of multiple H2 production methods to
assess the techno-economic feasibility of biomass utilisation. Yao et al.
(2017) investigated three CO2-neutral processes including biomass
steam gasification, alkaline electrolysis powered by renewable energy
and biogas steam gasification from technical and economic feasibility.
Biomass gasification demonstrated higher H2 conversion rate compared
to biogas gasification but at a lower efficiency. However, alkaline
electrolysis indicated the highest H2 conversion rate and efficiency in
contrast to the biomass-based gasification processes [22]. Ishaq and
Dincer (2019) proposed an integrated biomass-solar energy based
system consisting of absorption cooling system, copper-chlorine cycle,
solar field, reheat Rankine cycle and gas turbine cycle. The integrated
system is evaluated from energy and exergy perspectives for the pro-
duction of water, electricity, heat and H2. The results demonstrated an
overall energy efficiency of approximately 29.9% and an overall exergy
efficiency of around 31.5% [23].
Gasification of biomass utilising a single waste and/or single con-
figuration has been extensively investigated. Despite this, there are
opportunities to further research and develop co-gasification applica-
tions in addition to exploring the gasification of fuels using different
media. As such, the ultimate objective of this study is to establish a
process system that reduces Qatar’s national waste streams, approxi-
mated at 7000 tons per day of food waste alone [20], while poly-gen-
erating sustainable chemicals fuels and power. The study considers an
integrated feed of multiple biomass sources such as sewage sludge, li-
vestock manure, date pits and food waste for the poly-generation of
sustainable power and chemicals. On a basis of 578,000 tonne per
annum (tpa) Qatari biomass feedstock, the production of FT liquids,
methanol, urea and power is designed to meet the market demand and
to buffer the irregular biomass supply. Two types of gasifying medium;
oxygen and steam, are compared based on the requirements of material
and energy and the environmental and economic performance. The
different types of biomass are blended to produce H2-rich syngas, which
is subsequently fed into different utilisation options. Aspen plus soft-
ware is employed to develop and assess the poly-generation config-
urations from economic and environmental perspectives while con-
sidering the different gasifying mediums. The benchmark of the
different gasification agents serves as a decision making guide that can
determine optimum media for biomass waste gasification leading to the
generation of value added products. The novelty of this study is related
to different types of gasifying agents evaluated within the integrated
biomass gasification and product generation systems. The optimisation
nature of the integrated systems aids making decisions related to ga-
sifying medium and subsequent application considering an economic
and environmental Pareto front.
2. Methodology
The process of benchmarking the integrated systems of biomass
gasification and downstream applications adopted in this paper in-
volves the simulation of the different processes, the evaluation of the
economic and environmental parameters and the optimisation of the
production pathway. The optimisation is done by means of techno-
economic-environmental comparison of the different models. The eco-
nomic and environmental results of the different production routes are
used to construct economic-environmental Pareto curve to make the
decision on highest profitable route and highest environment-friendly
route. The following sections detail the description of the different
3
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
processes involved in the integrated system with the main flow dia-
grams and assumptions. It also highlights the systematic approach used
in this paper to benchmark the different components with the main
economic and environmental parameters considered.
2.1. Model development
Gasifier characteristics are governed by capacity limit, production
quality and biomass feedstock. Two types of gasifying medium; oxygen
and steam, are compared in this study based on the requirements of
material and energy and the economics and environmental perfor-
mance. In the steam-only configuration, the gasifier is supplied with a
source of indirect heat originated from the partial combustion of char.
The oxygen-only gasification utilises the heat directly from the exo-
thermic reactions within the gasifier. The two configurations follow the
established industrial scale of fast internally circulating fluidised bed
(FICFB) gasifiers [24,25]. This type of gasifier utilises pure oxygen to
generate a high quality syngas that can be improved in terms of H2
content with the utilisation of steam. Moreover, it has the potential to
process various types of feedstock with no oxygen demand to obtain
nitrogen-free producer gas and low formation of tar due to steam uti-
lisation [26].
Advanced simulation and modelling software such as Aspen Plus
give the ability to establish reliable analyses in terms of economic and
energy efficiency for the integrated biomass gasification and utilisation
pathways. It has the potential to model gasification systems in ac-
cordance to real plant performance and operating conditions. In this
study, two different configurations of biomass gasification based on
oxygen and steam media are simulated utilising multiple waste feed-
stock from the built environment of the state of Qatar to generate H2-
rich syngas. The syngas is then utilised in the generation of multiple
value-added products; Fisher- Tropsch Liquids (FTL), urea, methanol
and power. The simple block diagram of the integrated production
routes of biomass gasification and downstream utilisation systems is
illustrated in Fig. 1. The solid basis considered in the simulation of the
different production routes include isothermal and steady state opera-
tion, instantaneous drying and decomposition, char as a 100% carbon,
and neglected tar formation due to the use of steam and pure oxygen.
The Aspen Plus steady state simulation of integrated biomass gasi-
fication and downstream applications is modelled according to Qatar’s
biomass properties. A Biomass blended feedstock of four waste streams
involving food waste, sludge, date pits and manure is considered. The
model is supported by the reliable thermodynamic library of Aspen Plus
and the rigorous built-in equipment design tool in a sequential modular
approach to perform the mass and energy transfer balance. The in-
tegrated system modelled in this paper utilises three property packages
that include RKS-BM, NRTL, and Peng Robinson typically used with
nonpolar and real components in gas processing and production sys-
tems along with hydrocarbon separation. The system was utilised in
earlier studies to evaluate the oxygen with steam gasification [2], to
maximise the syngas production from biomass through feedstock
blending [27,28], to assess coconut coir pith-biomass gasification [29],
to evaluate the sustainability of the system using water-energy-food
(WEF) nexus application [30] and to maximise the benefits from the
superstructure design of the integrated system [31]. This paper aims to
compare the environmental and economic performance of biomass
gasification using different mediums in the production of urea, me-
thanol, liquid fuels and power. The poly-generation routes of the dif-
ferent products utilising oxygen and steam as gasifying agents are
evaluated using the economic evaluation and environmental assess-
ment tools of Aspen Plus. The simulation models has been validated in
earlier studies [2,27] against literature published data to confirm ap-
plicability. It is assumed that theses models run under steady state
conditions, atmospheric pressure, equilibrium gasification reactions,
neglected tar formation, char is only carbon and neglected pressure
drop. It starts with blending the biomass feedstock before feeding it to
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Fig. 1. Simple block diagram of integrated production routes of biomass gasification and downstream applications system.

Table 1 Table 2
As received proximate and ultimate analyses of biomass feedstock. Reactions.
Date pit Dried Sludge Food Waste Manure Gasification reactions [2,28]
waste H2 + S ↔ H2S (1)
0.5 N2 + 1.5H2 ↔ NH3 (2)
3 4 3 5
Mass Flow (tonne/y) 7.60x10 3.65x10 7.0x10 5.27x10 Cl2 + H2 ↔ 2HCl (3)
Proximate analyses (wt %) C + H2O ↔ CO + H2 (4)
Moisture 5.0 8.3 75.1 27.4 C + CO2 ↔ 2CO (5)
Fixed carbon 17.2 19.4 7.7 13.5 C + O2 ↔ CO2 (6)
Volatile matter 81.8 8.8 86.1 65.0 C + 2H2 ↔ CH4 (7)
Ash 1.0 71.8 6.2 21.6 2C + O2 ↔ 2 CO (8)
Ultimate analyses (wt %) CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2 (9)
N 4.5 1.1 3.1 3.7 CH4 + H2O ↔ CO + 3H2 (10)
H 6.8 2.3 6.9 5.1 Methanol synthesis reactions [32,33]
C 49.8 19.1 46.4 37.1 CO + 2H2 ↔ CH3OH (Methanol) (11)
O 37.9 5.7 37.4 31.4 CO2 + 3H2 ↔ CH3OH + H2O (12)
Cl 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Ammonia and Urea synthesis reactions [34,35]
S 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 N2 + 2H2 ↔ 2NH3 (Ammonia) (13)
Ash 1.0 71.8 6.2 21.4 2NH3 + CO2 ↔ NH4CO2NH2 (Ammonium Carbamate) (14)
LHV (dry basis) (MJ/kg) 34.07 20.50 19.12 19.40 NH4CO2NH2 ↔ H2O + NH2CONH2 (Urea) (15)
Power generation reactions [33,36,37]
H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O (16)
the yield reactor to decompose the unconventional attributes, presented CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 (17)
in Table 1, to conventional components. A calculator block estimates FT reactions [33]
the yield of the species presented in the dates pits, manure, sludge and Olefins synthesis nCO + (2n)H2 ↔ CnH2n + nH2O (18)
food waste wastes. Paraffin’s synthesis nCO + (2n + 1)H2 ↔ CnH2n+2 + nH2O (19)
Alcohols synthesis nCO + (2n)H2 ↔ CnH2n+1OH + (n-1)H2O (20)
The conventional components are then purified by separating ash
content and a small part of the char, in case of steam-only gasification,
to supplement the energy in the gasifier with combustion heat and state process with a total of 80% CO conversion in the FT reactor and a
achieve a gasification temperature of around 850 °C. The main stream 0.92 alpha hydrocarbon distribution in accordance with the
containing the carbon is directed to the gasification unit simulated as a Anderson–Schulz–Flory (ASF) equation. The production line, illustrated
Gibbs reactor where the reactions between carbon and gasifying agent; in Fig. 2, allows for 1% alcohols and 3% olefins formation. The syngas
oxygen or steam, take place at a pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of produced from biomass gasification is purified from water and acid
850 °C. The Gibbs reactor works based on the minimisation of Gibbs gases using a two-phase separator and a methanol-solvent based acid
free energy to predict the equilibrium composition following the reac- gas removal unit, respectively. The purified gas gets heated inside the
tions listed in Table 2. The gasification system consists of pressure FT loop up to the reaction temperature and then converted as per the
vessels with internal bed material heat circulation, ash separation and reactions presented in Table 2 to syn-crude which is further cooled and
external combustion of bed material in the case of steam gasification purified from water and the unreacted gases. The unreacted gases are
and does not take into account the other internal parts such as com- sent back to close the loop after purging a small quantity to avoid ac-
bustion chamber, fuel injector, burners and other internal fittings. The cumulation and maintain pressure. The syn-crude product is finally sent
oxygen is produced internally through air separation unit (ASU) and is to a fractionation tower to generate the different liquid fuels. The model
supplemented for gasification by the steam presented in the biomass is simulated in accordance with literature studies on biomass to liquid
feedstock as moisture, which takes part in the reaction. fuels conversion [33,38].
The effluent gas rich in H2 and CO is further utilised to produce The power generation process is simulated following the BIGCC
value-added products: FTL, urea, methanol and power. Each utilisation design illustrated in Fig. 3 and with the assumptions of steady-state
application utilises the intermediate generated syngas in a series of conditions, a 39% and 13% of overall process efficiency with 629 and
equipment to produce the value-added product. FTL are considered as 1676 kg per MWh biomass to power ratio, and 680 and 1620 kg per
clean fuels with low aromatics and zero sulphur and are mainly utilised MWh emissions to power ratio for steam and oxygen gasification op-
in lighting, heating, transportation and aviation. Whereas, power is tions, respectively. The hot effluent syngas from the biomass gasifica-
considered one of the leading applications of biomass to provide tion unit is first cooled to recover the heat and then enters the com-
lighting and drive turbines. The FT process is simulated as a steady- bustion reactor where the reactions of CO and H2 from Table 2 take

4
A. AlNouss, et al.
Fig. 2. Process diagram of FT liquids production route.
place in the presence of air. The combustion gases expand in a gas
turbine to generate electrical power before it enters the steam genera-
tion unit to produce extra power through a series of heat exchangers
and steam turbines. The BIGCC design is modelled following the pub-
lished work by Aspen Technology in cogeneration units and combined
cycles [33,36,37].
Methanol and urea processes are classified under petrochemical
plants which utilise the syngas produced from carbon-based materials
in a series of reaction and separation units to generate the value-added
products. The main use of urea is fertilising, whereas methanol is pri-
marily used as fuel, anti-freeze and solvent. Urea process, illustrated in
Fig. 4, is simulated as a steady-state model starting with biomass ga-
sification and followed by ammonia generation and urea production
loops. Ammonia generation loop is operated at an overall of 19% N2
conversion and 1/3 N2 to H2 ratio, a 7% purging of unreacted recycle
N2 and H2 stream, and an ammonia separation of 75% [34,39]. The
urea production loop is simulated with an overall of 80% CO2 and
ammonia conversion to urea, and a recovery of 90% for CO2 and am-
monia [35]. The syngas stream coming out from biomass gasification is
first directed to a water gas shift (WGS) reactor to adjust the CO2 and H2
content as per reactions 9 and 10 by using temperature approach values
of −90 and −265 °C, respectively, to restrict the equilibrium condi-
tions [24]. In addition, an external N2 stream is injected to supplement
the 1:3 desired nitrogen to H2 ratio. The adjusted syngas passes through
a two-phase separator and a methanol-based acid gas removal unit to
purify it from water and CO2. H2 and nitrogen presented in the
Fig. 3. Process diagram of BIGCC production route.
5
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
remaining stream enters the ammonia synthesis loop to undergo am-
monia production reactions listed in Table 2 under high temperature
between 480 and 430 °C and high pressure between 350 and 150 bar.
Ammonia product is separated from the loop after refrigeration and
pumped to the urea production loop whilst a small stream is purged
from the unreacted gases before recycling it to the reactor inlet. Simi-
larly, the captured CO2 in the acid gas cleaning unit is compressed and
sent to the Stamicarbon CO2 stripping based urea production process in
order to strip the urea solution before reacting with ammonia in the
Ammonium carbamate (AC) formation reactor. The produced AC is
then converted to Urea in the urea formation reactor and the remaining
part is decomposed in the AC decomposition reactor to yield CO2 and
ammonia. Urea product is purified before leaving the loop and the re-
maining components are sent to the scrubber column where the re-
maining ammonia and CO2 are removed from the top and the remaining
solution is mixed with the inlet ammonia feed. The urea and ammonia
production loops are simulated with reference to technology licensors
and literature studies on biomass gasification and applications [34,35].
Methanol production line illustrated in Fig. 5 is simulated as a
steady-state process with the assumptions of forward reaction me-
chanism and a 9% constant purge from the unreacted recycle gas
stream. As with the urea process, the WGS reactor take care of adjusting
the CO2 and H2 content in the generated syngas as it moves in the
methanol process from biomass gasification. The CO2 and Water im-
purities presented in the syngas are then purified to reach the required
(H2-CO2):(CO2 + CO) ratio of 1:2 using an acid cleaning unit and a
A. AlNouss, et al.
Fig. 4. Process diagram of urea production route.
two-phase separator, respectively. The purified syngas is conditioned in
a series of compressors and coolers before entering the methanol con-
vertor loop. With a high pressure between 100 and 50 bar, CO, CO2 and
H2 are converted to methanol and water following the reactions listed
in Table 2. The unreacted components are recycled from a two-phase
vessel to the reactor inlet after purging a small quantity to ensure
process stability. The produced methanol is considered crude and needs
to pass through a light ends distillation column to remove any leftover
gases and another heavy ends column to purify it from water. This
methanol process is modelled according to technology licensors and
literature studies on biomass gasification and applications [17,32,33].
The requirement of each production route differ in terms of energy
and material flows due to the different implementation of processing
blocks, conditions and standards. Moreover, the biomass gasification by
means of oxygen and steam mediums demonstrate different needs in
terms of material flows and energy duties. Tables 3 and 4 provide the
details of the energy and material requirement for the two biomass
Fig. 5. Process diagram of methanol production route.
6
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
gasification methods; oxygen and steam, respectively, and the four
production techniques integrated with each gasification method. The
blended biomass feedstock from the four different wastes has a carbon
content of 1.45 × 103 kmol/h. Small fraction of this carbon, indicated
as % of Char separated in Table 3, is combusted in the case of steam
gasification to supply an indirect heat source to the endothermic gasi-
fier. Whereas, the heat in the oxygen gasification case is generated by
the exothermic oxidations and combustion reactions inside the gasifier,
hence no fraction of carbon is separated. This is also indicated in the
energy flow presented in Tables 3 and 4, where the gasification heat
flow in MW have positive values in the steam gasification case in-
dicating endothermic reaction and negative values in the case of oxygen
gasification indicating exothermic reaction. This surplus exothermic
heat in the oxygen gasification case is used to fulfil internal gasifier
needs and the energy needs of the other processing units. The rest of the
energy flow that is not covered by the circulation of integrated heat is
covered by external utilities as explained in the upcoming techno-
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Table 3
Energy and material estimates of steam gasification and the proceeding four applications.
Material Flow Gasification
Biomass Sludge Dates Food Waste Manure

3 2 2
Mass Flowrate (kg/h) 4.16 × 10 8.67 × 10 7.99 × 10 6.01 × 104
Ash content (kg/h) Carbon content (kmol/h) Total Feed (kg/h)
1.21 × 104 1.45 × 103 6.59 × 104

Utilisation technique Urea Methanol BTL BIGCC

%Char Separated 22% 27% 21% 25%

Steam (kmol/h) 1.36 × 103 4.97 × 104 1.13 × 103 3.71 × 103
N2 (kmol/h) 4.53 × 102 6.10 × 102 3.34 × 102 5.78 × 102
Steam/C ratio 1.36 3.43 0.78 2.56
Syngas (kmol/h) 4.52 × 103 7.72 × 103 3.47 × 103 6.43 × 103
H2O 1.31 × 103 4.07 × 103 6.70 × 102 2.86x103
CO 4.53 × 102 2.58 × 102 5.02 × 102 3.36 × 102
H2 1.36 × 103 1.83 × 103 1.00 × 103 1.73 × 103
CO2 5.54 × 102 7.63 × 102 4.26 × 102 7.05 × 102
CO2 after removal unit 0.00 × 100 4.38 × 102 0.00 × 100 –
(H2-CO2)/(CO + CO2) – 2.00 – –
H2:CO 3.00 – 2.00 5.15
Product Urea MeOH Liquid Fuels Steam Power (kWh)
Mass Flowrate (ton/y) 1.70 × 105 1.69 × 105 6.97 × 104 1.36 × 106 9.18 × 108

Energy Flow Gasification

Decomposition yield reactors (MW) Manure Dates Sludge Food Waste

48.03 1.11 1.78 0.26

Utilisation technique Urea Methanol BTL BIGCC

Gasification (MW) 14.83 3.12 19.59 7.64

Combustion (MW) −36.35 −48.07 −31.59 −43.55
Production reactor (MW) Ammonia Urea MeOH FT Gas Furnace
−4.60 −20.80 −0.25 −23.06 0.00

economic analysis section. The flow of the gasifying agent; oxygen or
steam, is varied to achieve the H2 to CO ratio required for each
downstream application. This has showed different steam and oxygen
to carbon ratios among the different applications.
2.2. Systematic analysis
capital and operating costs and revenue. Aspen Energy Analyser (AEA)
and Aspen Process Economic Analyser (APEA) are utilised to conduct
the evaluation and gather the specific costs related to equipment pur-
chased and installation, engineering and procurement, operating and
maintenance charges and process utilities. Table 5 summarises the main
relations used to estimate the different plant costs.

The main objective behind process synthesis and design is to suggest
the optimum production plan in terms of feedstock, products and pro-
cess efficiencies to achieve the key indicators of beneficial economics
and high environmental compliance. Such indicators can often fall in
conflict with one another where the enhancement in one indicator may
impact negatively the other. Maximising environmental benefits
through emissions reduction or sequestration while simultaneously re-
ducing operating costs is a typical example of the conflicts faced by
industry. Such challenges were formerly optimised through associating
different weightings to multiple conflicting objectives where a single
formulated objective is optimised. Instead, Pareto front can be gener-
ated for a range of optimal solutions using multi-objective optimisation
where each point is non-dominate by other points. Hence, a pool of
potential solutions is presented from which a clear decision can be
made concerning the system requirement. The systematic approach to
compare the various considered production routes is presented in Fig. 6
where a techno, economic and environmental objectives are optimised.
2.3. Environmental and economic parameters
Ascertaining the feasibility of each downstream production route
through economic and environmental evaluation is essential to ensure
optimum profitability and compliance. The various routes considered
are evaluated from environmental and economic perspectives through
quantifying CO2 emissions from process utilities and streams along with
3. Results and discussion
The results of the environmental and economic evaluation for the
different gasification techniques and the downstream applications are
summarised in Tables 6 and 7. The four applications for steam-only and
oxygen-only gasification receive an equal amount of biomass feedstock
with blending ratios of manure, sludge, dates, and food waste equal
91%, 6%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. Integrated Ammonia-urea process
and biomass gasification system produces 2313 kg/h and 0.22 kg/h of
ammonia product and 19,449 kg/h and 997 kg/h of urea product with
capital costs of $4.0 × 107 and $5.1 × 107 and operating costs of
$6.1 × 106 and $7.7 × 106 per year for steam-only and oxygen-only
options, respectively. The environmental impacts associated with the
steam-only gasification demonstrate higher emissions of CO2 approxi-
mated at 8.9 × 102 and 8.1 × 104 kg/h for utilities and process
sources, respectively, compared to 2.1 × 103 and 6.1 × 104 kg/h as-
sociated with oxygen-only gasification. However, the net emissions per
output gives excellence for steam gasification since higher production
rate of ammonia and urea is achieved. Similarly the integration of
steam-only and oxygen-only biomass gasification systems with me-
thanol, FTL and power generation routes demonstrate excellence for
steam-only gasification with production rates of approximately
19,342 kg/h, 7955 kg/h and 9.2 × 108 kWh, capital costs of around
$2.5 × 107, $2.2 × 107 and $4.0 × 107 and operating costs of around
$7.3 × 106, $5.0 × 106 and $2.1 × 106 per year, respectively. In

7
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Table 4
Energy and material estimates of oxygen gasification and the proceeding four applications.
Material Flow Gasification
Biomass Sludge Dates Food Waste Manure

3 2 2
Mass Flowrate (kg/h) 4.16 × 10 8.67 × 10 7.99 × 10 6.01 × 104
Ash content (kg/h) Carbon content (kmol/h) Total Feed (kg/h)
1.21 × 104 1.45 × 103 6.59 × 104

Utilisation technique Urea Methanol BTL BIGCC

3 3 3
Air (kmol/h) (95 O2,1.6 N2, 3.4 Ar) 1.52 × 10 1.20 × 10 1.52 × 10 1.23 × 103
N2 (kmol/h) 2.10 × 101 1.41 × 102 2.14 × 101 1.32 × 102
O2/C ratio 1.05 0.83 1.05 0.85
Steam (moist)/C ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
Syngas (kmol/h) 3.63 × 103 7.67 × 102 3.63 × 103 3.70 × 103
H2O 1.89 × 103 1.52 × 103 1.89 × 103 1.55 × 103
CO 3.71 × 101 2.03 × 102 3.77 × 101 2.43 × 102
H2 6.30 × 101 4.23 × 102 6.42 × 101 3.97 × 102
CO2 1.41 × 103 1.18 × 103 1.41 × 103 1.20 × 103
CO2 after removal unit 0.00 × 100 5.47 × 100 0.00 × 100 –
(H2-CO2)/(CO + CO2) – 2.00 – –
H2:CO 1.7 – 1.7 1.64
Product Urea MeOH Liquid Fuels Steam Power (kWh)
Mass Flowrate (ton/y) 8.73 × 103 5.21 × 104 8.45 × 103 4.27 × 105 7.11 × 108

Energy Flow Gasification

Decomposition yield reactors (MW) Manure Dates Sludge Food Waste

48.03 1.11 1.78 0.26

Utilisation technique Urea Methanol BTL BIGCC

Gasification (MW) −125.70 −135.71 −178.68 −96.03

Surplus heat (MW) 74.52 84.53 127.50 44.85
Production reactor (MW) Ammonia Urea MeOH FT Gas Furnace
0.20 −0.17 −2.41 −2.03 0.00

The breakdown of the total operating and capital costs illustrated in

Fig. 6. Systematic analysis procedure.
contrast, the oxygen-only gasification option indicates production rates
approximated at 5943 kg/h, 965 kg/h and 3.45 × 108 kWh for me-
thanol, FTL and power generation routes, respectively, with capital
costs of around $4.9 × 107, $3.8 × 107 and $6.3 × 107 and operating
costs of around $8.1 × 106, $5.6 × 106 and $4.8 × 106 per year. The
environmental impacts associated with the steam-only gasification de-
monstrate lower emissions of CO2 approximated at 2.3, 15.2 and
8.7 kg/h per output for methanol, FTL and power generation routes,
respectively, compared to 9.3, 66.0 and 23.1 kg/h per output associated
with oxygen-only gasification routes. These results demonstrate the
excellence of steam gasification option in delivering value-added pro-
ducts with lower emissions and costs.
Fig. 7 indicates the purchased equipment cost as the largest contributor.
Moreover, the purchased equipment cost is higher for the oxygen-only
gasification compared to steam-only option due to the presence of the
expensive air separation unit. In terms of applications, the BIGCC de-
monstrate the highest purchased equipment cost due to the presence of
large compressors and turbines. The evaluated cost for BIGCC in this
category is approximately $63 M and $40 M for oxygen-only and steam-
only gasification, respectively. The engineering, design and procure-
ment cost is the second major cost for all the production routes. The
high-pressure requirement in the urea and methanol applications have
increased the process utilities cost.
The other costs presented in Fig. 7 demonstrate deviations over the
different downstream applications with mostly larger for the urea and
ammonia generation option. This is observed in maintenance and op-
erating charges, equipment setting, and design and engineering cost.
The distribution of the direct equipment cost over the different plant
units illustrate in Fig. 8 indicates huge variation among the different
applications. The major contributor to the equipment cost in the case of
oxygen-only gasification is the ASU with more than 60% for all the
production routes except BIGCC where gas turbine unit is the major
contributor with approximately 56%. Whereas in the case of steam-only
gasification, the syngas conditioning is one of the highest contributor to
the equipment cost for all the production routes except BIGCC where
the conditioning unit is not required. The highest ASU cost approxi-
mated at $36 M is associated with the urea production option and the
largest syngas conditioning cost approximated at $5M is associated
with methanol production option. The high cost associated with the
syngas conditioning unit is due to the strict requirement for CO2 and
water removal prior to the reaction sections. Moreover, the high pres-
sure requirement in the downstream production routes has increased
the overall operational costs.

8
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Table 5
Parameters and relations required for economic and environmental evaluation presented in APEA and AEA in Aspen plus [2].
Parameter Calculation criteria

Economic parameters Units

Plant life time 10 years
Interest rate 20 %/year
Cost of operators 20 $/operator/h
Number of operators 6 1/shift
Cost of Supervisors 35 $/supervisor/h
Number of operators 6 1/shift

Economic evaluation Equation

Capital cost Equipment purchase cost + installation and instrumentation cost + civil and electrical works + administration (21)
Operational cost Labor and operational charges + maintenance and administration cost + overhead cost of plant (22)
Working capital cost 5% of capital cost per period (23)
Operating labor cost Cost of shift operators and supervisors (24)
Plant overhead cost 50% of operating labor and maintenance cost per period (25)
Operating charges 25% of operating labor cost per period (26)
General administration cost 8% of total operational charges (labor + maintenance + plant overhead + operational charges) (27)

Environmental evaluation
CO2 emission rate from streams Mass flow rate of CO2 * global warming potential of CO2 (28)
CO2 emission rate from utilities Energy calculated for each utility * emission factor * energy source efficiency factor (29)

The breakdown of environmental emissions illustrated in Fig. 9
demonstrates the direct emissions coming mostly from process streams
as the largest contributor. Biomass conversion to liquid fuels using
steam-only gasification indicates the highest emissions from process
streams at approximately 120 tonne of CO2-e per h. Whereas, urea
production indicates the highest emissions from utilities at approxi-
mately 2 tonne of CO2-e per h for oxygen-only fed biomass gasification
route. This is due to the large usage of electrical power in the urea
production option.
The different downstream applications demonstrate variation on the
distribution of environmental emissions over the different plant
sections as illustrated in Figs. 10–13. Urea, methanol and liquid fuels
production options require the purification of syngas from CO2 and
Water to prevent any catalyst poisoning and deactivation in the reac-
tion units. This step is the highest contributor to the direct emissions for
both oxygen and steam fed biomass gasification routes. Whereas, the
non-reactive nature of BIGCC option doesn’t require any syngas pur-
ification and the CO2 is only emitted after the steam turbine section
which is the last unit in the BIGCC production route. The largest in-
direct emissions originating from process utilities are associated with
ASU in the case of oxygen-only gasification and reaction loops in the
case of steam-only gasification. This is due to high consumption of

Table 6
Results of environmental and economic evaluation for steam gasification case.
Ammonia/Urea Production Methanol Production Liquid Fuels Production Power Generation

3
Sludge (kg/h) 4.16 × 10 (06% of total feed)
Dates (kg/h) 8.67 × 102 (01% of total feed)
Food Waste (kg/h) 7.99 × 102 (01% of total feed)
Manure (kg/h) 6.01 × 104 (91% of total feed)
Total Feed (kg/h) 6.59 × 104
Biomass Price ($/tonne) 1
Product Amounts Ammonia (kg/h) MeOH (kg/h) FTL (kg/h) Power (kWh)
2.31 × 103 1.93 × 104 7.96 × 103 9.18 × 108
Urea (kg/h) Steam (H,M,L) (kg/h)
1.94 × 104 1.55 × 105
Product Prices* Ammonia ($/tonne) MeOH ($/tonne) FTL ($/tonne) Power ($/MWh)
375 490 775 5.72
Urea ($/tonne) Steam ($/tonne)
400 7.5
Total Capital Cost [$] 4.00 × 107 2.51 × 107 2.24 × 107 4.02 × 107
Total Raw Materials Cost [$/y] 5.78 × 105
Total Operating Cost [$/y] 6.08 × 106 7.31 × 106 4.95 × 106 2.10 × 106
Equipment Cost [$] 1.01 × 107 6.25 × 106 5.06 × 106 2.41 × 107
Total Installed Cost [$] 1.78 × 107 1.14 × 107 1.00 × 107 3.03 × 107
Total Utilities Cost [$/y] 4.85 × 105 1.29 × 106 2.74 × 105 –
Total Annualised Cost ($/y) 1.49 × 107 1.30 × 107 1.01 × 107 1.09 × 107
Revenue ($/y) 7.57 × 107 8.30 × 107 5.40 × 107 6.28 × 107
Utilities Electricity (kW) Electricity (kW) Electricity (kW)
7.65 × 103 4.20 × 103 3.23 × 103
Cooling Water (kg/h) Cooling Water (kg/h) Cooling Water (kg/h)
1.47 × 103 4.63 × 103 9.87 × 102
Refrigerant (kg/h)
2.24 × 102
CO2 indirect emissions (Utilities) [kg/h] 8.93 × 102 4.90 × 102 3.77 × 102 –
CO2 direct emissions (Streams) [kg/h] 8.13 × 104 4.43 × 104 1.21 × 105 6.38 × 104
Total CO2 Emissions [kg/h] per output 4.23 2.32 15.23 8.67
Total CO2 Emissions [kg/h] per input 1.25 0.68 1.84 0.97

*Prices source: [40].

9
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Table 7
Results of environmental and economic evaluation for oxygen gasification case.
Ammonia/Urea Production Methanol Production Liquid Fuels Production Power Generation

3
Sludge (kg/h) 4.16 × 10 (06% of total feed)
Dates (kg/h) 8.67 × 102 (01% of total feed)
Food Waste (kg/h) 7.99 × 102 (01% of total feed)
Manure (kg/h) 6.01 × 104 (91% of total feed)
Total Feed (kg/h) 6.59 × 104
Biomass Price ($/tonne) 1
Product Amounts Ammonia (kg/h) MeOH (kg/h) FTL (kg/h) Power (kWh)
2.18 × 10−1 5.94 × 103 9.65 × 102 3.45 × 108
Urea (kg/h) Steam (H,M,L) (kg/h)
9.97 × 102 4.87 × 104
Product Prices* Ammonia ($/tonne) MeOH ($/tonne) FTL ($/tonne) Power ($/MWh)
375 490 775 5.72
Urea ($/tonne) Steam ($/tonne)
400 7.5
Total Capital Cost [$] 5.10 × 107 4.93 × 107 3.78 × 107 6.30 × 107
Total Raw Materials Cost [$/y] 5.78 × 105
Total Operating Cost [$/y] 7.66 × 106 8.74 × 106 5.60 × 106 4.79 × 106
Equipment Cost [$] 1.88 × 107 1.94 × 107 2.66 × 107 3.63 × 107
Total Installed Cost [$] 2.70 × 107 2.66 × 107 3.38 × 107 4.42 × 107
Total Utilities Cost [$/y] 4.22 × 105 8.13 × 105 1.74 × 105 –
Total Annualised Cost ($/y) 1.87 × 107 1.94 × 107 1.39 × 107 1.83 × 107
Revenue ($/y) 3.49 × 106 2.55 × 107 6.56 × 106 2.29 × 107
Utilities Electricity (kW) Electricity (kW) Electricity (kW)
1.78 × 104 1.55 × 104 1.31 × 104
Cooling Water (kg/h) Cooling Water (kg/h)
3.16 × 101 2.92 × 103
Refrigerant (kg/h) Refrigerant (kg/h)
2.51 × 102 1.20 × 102
CO2 indirect emissions (Utilities) [kg/h] 2.08 × 103 1.81 × 10 3
1.53 × 103 –
CO2 direct emissions (Streams) [kg/h] 6.14 × 104 5.33 × 104 6.22 × 104 6.38 × 104
Total CO2 Emissions [kg/h] per output 63.69 9.27 65.99 23.10
Total CO2 Emissions [kg/h] per input 0.96 0.84 0.97 0.97

*Prices source: [40].

Fig. 7. Operating and capital costs breakdown for steam (S) and oxygen (O) fed integrated biomass gasification and downstream application systems.

utilities in these units to satisfy the cooling and compressing require-
ment.
The plant environmental compliance is a major factor on de-
termining process feasibility when it comes to the use of renewable
resources. In this regard, Pareto curve offers a range of feasible solu-
tions for multi-objective optimisation where the competing objectives
are not dominating over each other. By using this, the economic profits
and environmental burdens of all the production routes are compared.
Fig. 14 illustrates the results for all the downstream applications uti-
lising both oxygen and steam as gasification agents where a Pareto
curve is used to detail the respective environmental and economic
computations. The results demonstrate that methanol generation uti-
lising steam as gasifying agent is the optimum in terms of
environmental and economic objectives with around 0.60 kg of CO2-e
per kg of biomass input and $0.12 net profit per kg of biomass input.
Methanol generation indicates the lowest direct and indirect emissions
along with the lowest capital cost and the highest revenue. The results
obtained from the economic and environmental evaluation demonstrate
the excellence of steam-only biomass gasification in providing profit-
able and cleaner products. The four configurations of methanol, urea,
liquid fuels and power generation resulted in positive net economic
profit with steam gasification, whilst only two configurations; methanol
and power generation showed a positive net profit with oxygen gasi-
fication.
The relative nature of the results can offer diverse perspectives
depending on the market situation of the products. Consequently,

10
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Fig. 8. Equipment cost distribution over the main sections of each downstream application in [M$]; a) BIGCC power production, b) methanol production, c)
ammonia and urea production, d) liquid fuels production for oxygen and steam configurations.

analysing the results relative to production capacity as illustrated in
Fig. 15, power generation using steam-only gasification achieves a net
profit approximated at $0.80 per kg of product, whilst methanol pro-
duction using steam gasification remains the lowest environmental
impact solution with 2.32 kg of CO2-e per output product. In this
analysis, a heating value of 14 MWh per tonne is used to evaluate the
power generation equivalency to liquefied natural gas (LNG).
With the abundance of waste streams in the state of Qatar and the
high interest to advance in renewable energy, the price of biomass is
assumed relatively low. However, a sensitivity analysis is constructed to

Fig. 9. Breakdown of environmental emissions for steam (S) and oxygen (O) fed integrated biomass gasification and downstream application systems.

11
A. AlNouss, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612

Fig. 10. Environmental emissions distribution in [1000 kg CO2-e/h] over the major units of ammonia/urea process for oxygen (O) and steam (S) configurations.

Fig. 11. Environmental emissions distribution in [1000 kg CO2-e/h] over the major units of methanol process for oxygen (O) and steam (S) configurations.

Fig. 12. Environmental emissions distribution in [1000 kg CO2-e/h] over the major units of liquid fuels process for oxygen (O) and steam (S) configurations.

demonstrate the effect of biomass price on the profitability of the only gasification routes while some oxygen fed production routes de-
downstream applications. As illustrated in Fig. 16, the economic trends monstrate no achievable breakpoint to the profitability range. For in-
of the different applications demonstrate high profitability for steam- stance, the price associated with the BIGCC option must not fall below

12
A. AlNouss, et al.
Fig. 13. Environmental emissions distribution in [1000 kg CO2-e/h] over the major units of BIGCC process for oxygen (O) and steam (S) configurations.
$8 per tonne for oxygen-only gasification, which demonstrates the
lowest price amongst the options of this configuration. Whereas, the
BIGCC option with steam-only gasification demonstrate strong beha-
viour with no negative breakpoint in the considered range. The me-
thanol production technique with steam-only gasification demonstrates
the best response to biomass market price fluctuation with no negative
breakpoint.
Similarly, a sensitivity study is constructed to investigate the effect
of product price on the economic profitability of the different down-
stream applications. As illustrated in Fig. 17, the methanol generation
option with oxygen-only gasification demonstrates a minimum selling
price of around $375 per tonne of methanol whereas the urea process
demonstrates no positive breakpoint of profit. The options utilising
steam-only gasification demonstrate strong response to products price
fluctuation compared to oxygen-only gasification.
It can be concluded from the results of the different analyses that the
profitability of the production routes is highly dependent on the type of
gasifying agent along with the price of biomass feedstock, product and
the capital investment. Moreover, the global and local factors influence
the relative pricing of feedstock and products. Hence, an available and
relatively cheap feedstock must be utilised to produce highly value-
added products in order to lower the initial investment and achieve the
highest revenue. In summary, the design of an integrated biomass
Fig. 14. Environment - economic Pareto curve as per a kg unit of biomass input.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
gasification and downstream poly-generation facility can offer flex-
ibility in response to product and feedstock price fluctuation.
4. Conclusion
The global focus is directed towards more implementation of re-
newable energy in the global energy mix in order to limit emissions of
GHGs and achieve reduction in the fossil fuels dependency. Biomass, a
CO2 neutral fuel, serves as a potential energy source for the generation
of valuable chemicals and sustainable power. Gasification, among other
thermochemical conversion methods, is marked as a prominent route
for generating a clean and less polluting intermediate gas for high ef-
ficiency power generation. However, multiple gasification agents in-
cluding steam, oxygen, air, and oxygen-enriched air can be utilised for
the gasification process resulting in a different composition of the
produced syngas. The aim of this study is to compare the biomass ga-
sification using oxygen-only and steam-only gasifying agents.
Moreover, the study examines a poly-generation system that consumes
Qatar’s biomass feedstock of multiple sources to produce Fisher-
Tropsch liquids, methanol, urea, and power. To achieve this aim, Aspen
plus is utilised to simulate and integrate the different processes in a
customised model where the feasibility of each production process is
assessed from environmental and economic perspectives. Evidently,
A. AlNouss, et al.
Fig. 15. Environment - economic Pareto curve as per a kg unit of product output.
Fig. 16. Trend of economic profitability and biomass price.
Fig. 17. Trend of economic profitability and product price.
methanol production utilising steam as gasifying agent is the optimum
route in terms of environmental and economic objectives with around
0.60 kg of CO2-e per kg of biomass input and $0.12 net profit per kg of
biomass input. The economic performance per product output indicated
a different outcome with BIGCC with steam-only gasification as the
most optimum production route. Moreover, it can be concluded from
the results of the different analyses performed in this study that the
profitability of the production routes is highly dependent on the type of
gasifying agent along with the price of biomass feedstock, product and
the capital investment. The optimisation nature of the study can aid
decision-making related to waste biomass utilisation, gasifying medium
14
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
and subsequent application, especially as the design of an integrated
biomass gasification and downstream poly-generation facility can offer
flexibility in response to feed and product price fluctuation.
Credit authorship contribution statement
Ahmed AlNouss: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization,
Project administration. Gordon McKay: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision,
Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Tareq
Al-Ansari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Funding ac-
quisition, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Qatar National Research
Fund (QNRF) (a member of Qatar Foundation, Qatar) by GSRA grant No
GSRA4-1-0518-17082. The statements made herein are solely the re-
sponsibility of the authors.
References
[1] Shayan E, Zare V, Mirzaee I. Hydrogen production from biomass gasification; a
theoretical comparison of using different gasification agents. Energy Convers
Manage 2018;159:30–41.
[2] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. A techno-economic-environmental study evalu-
ating the potential of oxygen-steam biomass gasification for the generation of value-
added products. Energy Convers Manage 2019;196:664–76.
[3] Sharma S, Sheth PN. Air–steam biomass gasification: experiments, modeling and
simulation. Energy Convers Manage 2016;110:307–18.
[4] Hosseini M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Steam and air fed biomass gasification: compar-
isons based on energy and exergy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:16446–52.
[5] de Sales CAVB, Maya DMY, Lora EES, Jaén RL, Reyes AMM, González AM, et al.
Experimental study on biomass (eucalyptus spp.) gasification in a two-stage
downdraft reactor by using mixtures of air, saturated steam and oxygen as gasifying
agents. Energy Convers Manage 2017;145:314–23.
[6] Cerone N, Zimbardi F, Contuzzi L, Prestipino M, Carnevale MO, Valerio V. Air-steam
A. AlNouss, et al.
and oxy-steam gasification of hydrolytic residues from biorefinery. Fuel Process
Technol 2017;167:451–61.
[7] Lv P, Yuan Z, Ma L, Wu C, Chen Y, Zhu J. Hydrogen-rich gas production from
biomass air and oxygen/steam gasification in a downdraft gasifier. Renewable
Energy 2007;32:2173–85.
[8] Huynh CV, Kong S-C. Performance characteristics of a pilot-scale biomass gasifier
using oxygen-enriched air and steam. Fuel 2013;103:987–96.
[9] Thanapal SS, Annamalai K, Sweeten JM, Gordillo G. Fixed bed gasification of dairy
biomass with enriched air mixture. Appl Energy 2012;97:525–31.
[10] Zhou C, Rosén C, Engvall K. Biomass oxygen/steam gasification in a pressurized
bubbling fluidized bed: Agglomeration behavior. Appl Energy 2016;172:230–50.
[11] Kim Y-D, Yang C-W, Kim B-J, Moon J-H, Jeong J-Y, Jeong S-H, et al.
Fischer–tropsch diesel production and evaluation as alternative automotive fuel in
pilot-scale integrated biomass-to-liquid process. Appl Energy 2016;180:301–12.
[12] Rafati M, Wang L, Dayton DC, Schimmel K, Kabadi V, Shahbazi A. Techno-economic
analysis of production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids via biomass gasification: The ef-
fects of Fischer-Tropsch catalysts and natural gas co-feeding. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;133:153–66.
[13] Flórez-Orrego D, Maréchal F, de Oliveira Junior S. Comparative exergy and eco-
nomic assessment of fossil and biomass-based routes for ammonia production.
Energy Convers Manage 2019;194:22–36.
[14] Carpentieri M, Corti A, Lombardi L. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an integrated
biomass gasification combined cycle (IBGCC) with CO2 removal. Energy Convers
Manage 2005;46:1790–808.
[15] Li CY, Wu JY, Chavasint C, Sampattagul S, Kiatsiriroat T, Wang RZ. Multi-criteria
optimization for a biomass gasification-integrated combined cooling, heating, and
power system based on life-cycle assessment. Energy Convers Manage
2018;178:383–99.
[16] Andersson J, Lundgren J. Techno-economic analysis of ammonia production via
integrated biomass gasification. Appl Energy 2014;130:484–90.
[17] Andersson J, Lundgren J, Marklund M. Methanol production via pressurized en-
trained flow biomass gasification – techno-economic comparison of integrated vs.
stand-alone production. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;64:256–68.
[18] Al-Rahbi AS, Williams PT. Hydrogen-rich syngas production and tar removal from
biomass gasification using sacrificial tyre pyrolysis char. Appl Energy
2017;190:501–9.
[19] Detchusananard T, Im-orb K, Ponpesh P, Arpornwichanop A. Biomass gasification
integrated with CO2 capture processes for high-purity hydrogen production: pro-
cess performance and energy analysis. Energy Convers Manage 2018;171:1560–72.
[20] Okajima I, Shimoyama D, Sako T. Gasification and hydrogen production from food
wastes using high pressure superheated steam in the presence of alkali catalyst. J
Chem Eng Jpn 2007;40:356–64.
[21] Ahmed II, Gupta AK. Pyrolysis and gasification of food waste: Syngas characteristics
and char gasification kinetics. Appl Energy 2010;87:101–8.
[22] Yao J, Kraussler M, Benedikt F, Hofbauer H. Techno-economic assessment of hy-
drogen production based on dual fluidized bed biomass steam gasification, biogas
steam reforming, and alkaline water electrolysis processes. Energy Convers Manage
2017;145:278–92.
15
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112612
[23] Ishaq H, Dincer I. Design and performance evaluation of a new biomass and solar
based combined system with thermochemical hydrogen production. Energy
Convers Manage 2019;196:395–409.
[24] Doherty W, Reynolds A, Kennedy D. Aspen plus simulation of biomass gasification
in a steam blown dual fluidised bed. (2013).
[25] Richardson Y, Drobek M, Julbe A, Blin J, Pinta F. Chapter 8 – Biomass gasification
to produce syngas. In: Pandey A, Bhaskar T, Stöcker M, Sukumaran RK, editors.
Recent advances in thermo-chemical conversion of biomass. Boston: Elsevier; 2015.
p. 213–50.
[26] Pfeifer C, Koppatz S, Hofbauer H. Steam gasification of various feedstocks at a dual
fluidised bed gasifier: impacts of operation conditions and bed materials. Biomass
Convers Biorefin 2011;1:39–53.
[27] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Production of syngas via gasification using op-
timum blends of biomass. J Cleaner Prod 2020;242:118499.
[28] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Optimum utilization of biomass for the pro-
duction of power and fuels using gasification. In: A. Friedl, J.J. Klemeš, S. Radl, P.S.
Varbanov, T. Wallek, (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier2018.
p. 1481–6.
[29] AlNouss A, Parthasarathy P, Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, Mackey H, McKay G. Techno-
economic and sensitivity analysis of coconut coir pith-biomass gasification using
ASPEN PLUS. Appl Energy 2020;261:114350.
[30] AlNouss A, Namany S, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Applying a sustainability metric in
energy, water and food nexus applications; a biomass utilization case study to
improve investment decisions. In: A.A. Kiss, E. Zondervan, R. Lakerveld, L. Özkan,
(Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier 2019. p. 205–10.
[31] AlNouss A, McKay G, Al-Ansari T. Superstructure optimization for the production of
fuels, fertilizers and power using biomass gasification. In: A.A. Kiss, E. Zondervan,
R. Lakerveld, L. Özkan, (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering.
Elsevier2019. p. 301–6.
[32] Methanol. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
[33] Balat M, Balat M, Kırtay E, Balat H. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of
biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 2: Gasification systems. Energy Convers
Manage 2009;50:3158–68.
[34] Ammonia, 2. Production processes. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry.
[35] Urea. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry.
[36] Zheng L, Furimsky E. ASPEN simulation of cogeneration plants. Energy Convers
Manage 2003;44:1845–51.
[37] Emun F, Gadalla M, Majozi T, Boer D. Integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) process simulation and optimization. Comput Chem Eng 2010;34:331–8.
[38] Seifkar N, Lu X, Withers M, Malina R, Field R, Barrett S, et al. Biomass to liquid fuels
pathways: a techno-economic environmental evaluation. MIT Energy Initiative
2015.
[39] Arora P, Hoadley AFA, Mahajani SM, Ganesh A. Small-scale ammonia production
from biomass: a techno-enviro-economic perspective. Ind Eng Chem Res
2016;55:6422–34.
[40] ICIS. Chemical Industry News & Chemical Market Intelligence. 2018.