4.7 Article

Techno-economic and environmental assessment of staged oxy-co-firing of biomass-derived syngas and natural gas

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 243, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114410

关键词

Biomass gasification; oxy-cofiring; Levelised cost of electricity; Life cycle assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biomass oxy-co-firing technology is considered promising, with net power efficiencies ranging from 42.6% to 45.5%. Economic assessment indicates that increasing biomass flowrate leads to higher costs, while biomass priced at 80 euros/tdry shows competitive advantages.
The utilisation of biomass is regarded as a promising technology as a negative CO2 resource and is widely under investigation. Although being a developing technology predominantly used as the axillary fuel, the interest in biomass gasification has increased since the last decade due to increased attention in sustainable bioenergy. Therefore, in this study, a novel process of biomass-derived syngas and natural gas oxy-co-firing is being investigated. Aspen Plus (R) is employed to develop the staged oxy-co-firing of biomass-based syngas and the natural gas cycle. The results revealed that the net power efficiencies are in the range of 42.6% and 45.5%. Furthermore, the economic assessment reveals that the LCOE increases with the increment of biomass flowrate with the highest cost of euro79.6/MWh for 7 kg/s biomass mass flow rate. The effect of different biomass prices on LCOE is also investigated. It proved that the implementation of biomass with the price of euro80/tdry results in the competitive LCOE to the state-of-the-art power cycles without carbon capture system (euro62.9/MWh). On the other hand, the environmental analysis reveals that in order to have a negative CO2 emission power cycle, the minimum biomass flowrate should be at 7 kg/s which results in specific negative CO2 emission and total life cycle of CO2 emission of 195.5 and 168.5 kg CO2/MWh, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据