IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v45y2012i1p329-338.html

Combined hydrothermal carbonization and gasification of biomass with carbon capture

Author

Listed:
  • Erlach, B.
  • Harder, B.
  • Tsatsaronis, G.

Abstract

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can result in negative net carbon emissions and may therefore provide an important technology option for meeting current greenhouse gas stabilization targets. To this end, syngas from biomass gasification combined with pre-combustion carbon capture can be used to produce either biofuels or electricity. Pre-treating the biomass with hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) produces a coal-like substance, biocoal, which is potentially better suited for entrained flow gasification than raw biomass. This paper compares HTC followed by entrained flow gasification of the biocoal with fluidized bed gasification of raw wood, both with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Simulation studies undertaken with Aspen Plus are interpreted using exergy analysis. Syngas production is more efficient from biocoal than from raw wood but the conversion losses in the HTC process outweigh the efficiency gains in the gasification. Carbon losses through gaseous and dissolved byproducts in the HTC also limit the capture rate. A CCS-IGCC with fluidized bed gasification using raw wood results in an electrical efficiency of 28.6% (HHV) and a carbon capture rate of 84.5%, while the conversion chain of HTC and a CCS-IGCC with entrained flow gasification yields an electrical efficiency of 27.7% and a capture rate of 72.7%.

Suggested Citation

  • Erlach, B. & Harder, B. & Tsatsaronis, G., 2012. "Combined hydrothermal carbonization and gasification of biomass with carbon capture," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 329-338.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:45:y:2012:i:1:p:329-338
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421200062X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Descamps, C. & Bouallou, C. & Kanniche, M., 2008. "Efficiency of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 874-881.
    2. Ottmar Edenhofer & Brigitte Knopf & Terry Barker & Lavinia Baumstark & Elie Bellevrat & Bertrand Chateau & Patrick Criqui & Morna Isaac & Alban Kitous & Socrates Kypreos & Marian Leimbach & Kai Lessma, 2010. "The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs," The Energy Journal, , vol. 31(1_suppl), pages 11-48, June.
    3. repec:aen:journl:2010se1-low-stabilization-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dietz, Simon & Gollier, Christian & Kessler, Louise, 2018. "The climate beta," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 258-274.
    2. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    4. Igor Donskoy, 2023. "Techno-Economic Efficiency Estimation of Promising Integrated Oxyfuel Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Plants with Carbon Capture," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Sasaki, Takashi & Suzuki, Tomoko & Akasaka, Yasufumi & Takaoka, Masaki, 2017. "Generation efficiency improvement of IGCC with CO2 capture by the application of the low temperature reactive shift catalyst," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 60-67.
    6. Lee, Jong Jun & Kim, Young Sik & Cha, Kyu Sang & Kim, Tong Seop & Sohn, Jeong L. & Joo, Yong Jin, 2009. "Influence of system integration options on the performance of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(9), pages 1788-1796, September.
    7. Farboud Khatami & Erfan Goharian, 2022. "Beyond Profitable Shifts to Green Energies, towards Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-28, April.
    8. Lennox, James A. & Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan, 2017. "Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: Implications for climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 400-409.
    9. Charlie Wilson & Arnulf Grubler, 2011. "Lessons from the history of technological change for clean energy scenarios and policies," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(3), pages 165-184, August.
    10. Misconel, S. & Leisen, R. & Mikurda, J. & Zimmermann, F. & Fraunholz, C. & Fichtner, W. & Möst, D. & Weber, C., 2022. "Systematic comparison of high-resolution electricity system modeling approaches focusing on investment, dispatch and generation adequacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. Matthias Weitzel, 2017. "The role of uncertainty in future costs of key CO2 abatement technologies: a sensitivity analysis with a global computable general equilibrium model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-173, January.
    12. Favero, Alice & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sohngen, Brent, "undated". "Carbon Storage and Bioenergy: Using Forests for Climate Mitigation," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Ding, Ya-Long & Xu, Chun-Gang & Yu, Yi-Song & Li, Xiao-Sen, 2017. "Methane recovery from natural gas hydrate with simulated IGCC syngas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 192-198.
    14. Ottmar Edenhofer & Susanne Kadner & Christoph von Stechow & Gregor Schwerhoff & Gunnar Luderer, 2014. "Linking climate change mitigation research to sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 30, pages 476-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Johansson, Daniel J. A. & Lucas, Paul L. & Weitzel, Matthias & Ahlgren, Erik O. & Bazaz, A. B. & Chen, Wenying & den Elzen, Michel G. J. & Ghosh, Joydeep & Grahn, Maria & Liang, Qiao-Mei & Peterson, S, 2012. "Multi-model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime," Kiel Working Papers 1808, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    16. Kai Lessmann & Matthias Kalkuhl, 2024. "Climate Finance Intermediation: Interest Spread Effects in a Climate Policy Model," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 11(1), pages 213-251.
    17. Carraro, Carlo & Favero, Alice & Massetti, Emanuele, 2012. "“Investments and public finance in a green, low carbon, economy”," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S1), pages 15-28.
    18. Ryan Rafaty & Geoffroy Dolphin & Felix Pretis, 2020. "Carbon pricing and the elasticity of CO2 emissions," Working Papers EPRG2035, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    19. Erlach, B. & Schmidt, M. & Tsatsaronis, G., 2011. "Comparison of carbon capture IGCC with pre-combustion decarbonisation and with chemical-looping combustion," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 3804-3815.
    20. Xunzhang, Pan & Wenying, Chen & Clarke, Leon E. & Lining, Wang & Guannan, Liu, 2017. "China's energy system transformation towards the 2°C goal: Implications of different effort-sharing principles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 116-126.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:45:y:2012:i:1:p:329-338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.