Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Gasification process integration with existing combined heat and power T

plants for polygeneration of dimethyl ether or methanol: A detailed
profitability analysis
⁎
Chaudhary Awais Salmana, , Muhammad Naqvia,b, Eva Thorina, Jinyue Yana,c
a
School of Business, Society and Engineering, Mälardalen University, PO Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden
b
Department of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, Sweden
c
School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

H I GH L IG H T S

• Combined heat and power (CHP) plants are integrated with gasification process.
• Operational limits of CHP are evaluated for polygeneration of DME or methanol.
• Economic analysis is conducted by using NAP, PBP, ROROI, and NPV.
• Sensitivity analysis is performed by varying important parameters.
• Future profitability is assessed through Monte Carlo simulations.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Combustion of waste for cogeneration of heat and power is the most convenient and practical choice to carry out
Biomass-to-liquid through combined heat and power (CHP) plants. But, seasonal variation in heat demand throughout the year
Waste-to-energy affects the operation of CHP plants. This fluctuation in the CHP operation cause less annual operating hours for
Monte Carlo simulations the plant equipment and is also not profitable for stakeholders. This study aims to assess the technical potential
Aspen plus
of integrated gasification process with existing CHP plants for either dimethyl ether (DME) or methanol pro-
Gasification
duction through refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Process integration considers that the CHP plant provides the ne-
cessary heat for biofuel synthesis during off-peak hours. Mass and heat integration methods are used to develop
and simulate the polygeneration processes for heat, power, and biofuel production. Both technical and economic
indicators are reported and compared to assess the potential for both biofuels through process integration.
Annual operation data of a real CHP plant has been extracted to evaluate the integrated processes. A flexible
gasification configuration is selected for the integrated approach i.e. CHP runs at full load to provide the heat
demand and only the excess heat of CHP plant is utilized for biofuel production. The energetic efficiencies of the
polygeneration systems are compared with the standalone systems. Technical analysis of process integration
shows the enhancement of the operational capacity of CHP during off-peak hours and it can produce biofuels
without compromising the annual heat demand. Production of methanol through process integration shows
∼67% energetic efficiency while methanol production gives ∼65%. The efficiencies are higher than standalone
DME and methanol processes (51% and 53%, respectively) but lower than standalone CHP plant i.e. 81%,
however the process integration increases the operating time of the CHP plant with more economic benefits.
Economic analysis coupled with uncertainty analysis through Monte Carlo simulations shows that by integrating
CHP with gasifier to produce biofuels is significantly profitable as compared with only heat and electricity
production. But, DME as a potential product shows more economic benefits than methanol. The uncertainty
analysis through Monte Carlo simulations shows that the profitable probability of DME as a product in future is
also greater than methanol due to higher DME selling price. The uncertainty analysis further shows that prices of
DME and methanol with waste biomass prices in future will have a greater impact on the economic performance
of the proposed polygeneration process.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chaudhary.awais.salman@mdh.se (C.A. Salman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.069
Received 23 January 2018; Received in revised form 10 April 2018; Accepted 19 May 2018
Available online 31 May 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C.A. Salman et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AIC annualized investment cost
bpd barrels per day
BP British Petroleum
CEPCI Chemical engineering plant cost index
CHP combined heat and power
CNG compressed natural gas
CRF capital recovery factor
DFBG dual fluidized bed gasifier
DME dimethyl ether
FCI fixed capital investment
LHV low heating value
NAP net annual profit
NPV net present value
O&M operating and maintenance
PBP payback period
RDF refuse-derived fuel
1. Introduction
In 2017, the oil demand across the globe was 97 million barrels per
day (bpd) approximate, and the oil demand will sustain and is expected
to reach at its peak around 2035–2040 to the production of 103.5 bpd
[1,2]. According to a report by British Petroleum (BP), petroleum fuels
such as oil, gas, and coal will remain the leading sources of primary
energy with a total share of 75% by 2035 [3]. A major use of con-
ventional petroleum fuels is as a transport fuel. Oil demand for trans-
port will effect due to the rise of electric vehicles, mostly for small
passenger vehicles. However, according to IEA new policies scenario,
the use of petroleum fuels in passenger vehicles will be reduced by only
2.5 million bpd from current consumption and are predicted to reach
about 24 million bpd in 2040 [4]. Another important reason for the
sustained oil demand in upcoming decades is its application as feed-
stock in the petrochemical industry. The design and development of
biofuels processes from waste biomass resources are necessary to dec-
arbonize the oil sector.
In Europe, petroleum fuels in transportation sector alone account
for 21% of greenhouse gases. The replacement of fossil fuel with bio-
fuels for transport can help to reduce these emissions [5–7]. A couple of
alternatives to fossil fuel is dimethyl ether (DME) and methanol. World
demand for methanol is about to reach 85 billion tons by 2018 and is
likely to rise in the next decade [8]. At present, the main application of
methanol is to produce high value-added chemicals, e.g., formaldehyde,
acetic acid, etc. But, methanol can also replace fossil fuels in internal
combustion engines after some modifications in the engine or as an
oxygenated additive after blending with gasoline [9]. Other applica-
tions of methanol are either as fuel cells for electric power production
or to synthesize other transport biofuels such as DME and gasoline.
DME has properties similar to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and it can
synthesize from both conventional and renewable feedstocks, e.g., coal,
crude oil, biomass, waste, etc. [5]. DME combustion produces less NOx
and SOx emissions with less particulate matter than conventional diesel
fuel [10]. The well to wheel efficiency of DME is comparable with LPG
and compressed natural gas (CNG) [11]. Furthermore, DME can replace
petroleum fuels gas turbines and industrial applications [5,10]. Clausen
et al. reported that DME requires the low cost to replace as an alter-
native transportation fuel and gives high energy efficiency and lesser
CO2 emissions as compared with other liquid biofuels [11,12]. The
state-of-the-art method to produce DME is through dehydration of
methanol and at the moment China produces over 90% of DME con-
sumed worldwide. But, the market capacity of DME is expected to reach
117
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
ROR rate of return
TCI total capital investment
WCI working capital investment
WGS water gas shift
Symbols
A capacity
C cost (Euros)
I consumption (MWh)
i interest rate (%)
n scaling factor
N project life (years)
P production (MWh)
Rt cash flow
Y yield (wt.%)
Subscripts
o base capacity
20 million tons by 2020 [13]. Europe is also taking steps to transition
towards biofuel economy by 2030 which will also increase the DME
market share in future [13].
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is an organic waste which comprises non-
recyclable combustible waste collected from various sources such as
municipal solid waste, commercial, industrial organic waste, and agri-
cultural waste. In Europe, the waste management directives 2006/12/
EC put the legislation on landfilling and state that the RDF must convert
to energy through the novel and innovative processes. In Europe, the
total volume of RDF derived municipal solid waste alone is expected to
reach 338 million tonnes by 2020 [14]. RDF waste can convert to
biofuels via biological or thermochemical treatment through biomass to
liquid (BTL) process. Biological treatment, e.g., digestion or fermenta-
tion requires source separation of biodegradable waste from RDF and
take long processing times for conversion to biofuels. Among various
thermochemical conversion, gasification is the most suitable tech-
nology for conversion of RDF to biofuels [14]. Gasification of biomass
or RDF produces syngas which can convert to DME and methanol.
There are some studies on the production of DME by biomass gasifi-
cation as a stand-alone facility [4–7]. Clausen et al. [11,12] reported up
to 58% of energy efficiency for biomass gasification to produce DME
and 56% efficiency of biomass to methanol process. Tock et al. [15] and
Arvidson et al. [16] reported up to 53% and 54% of stand-alone en-
ergetic efficiency for methanol and DME, respectively. The low effi-
ciency of stand-alone biofuel production can increase through the de-
velopment of integrated biomass-based energy systems. One alternative
is to design and implement flexible capacity polygeneration facilities
and generate multiple bio-products such as heat, power, and biofuels.
The flexible polygeneration processes will gives not only high overall
efficiency but also produce relevant renewable products to meet con-
sumer demand and at the same time help to mitigate CO2 emissions
[17].
Combustion of RDF is a convenient process to implement at a larger
scale, such as, in combined heat and power (CHP) plants. However,
combustion only produces heat and electric power as potential pro-
ducts. CHP plants deliver electricity and district heat to domestic and
industrial consumers. The main concern with the CHP plant is their
partial operation due to seasonal variation in heat demand throughout
the year. Kohl et al. [18] reported that a typical CHP plant only oper-
ates for 70 days a year at a full load capacity and operates at a part-load
for 145 days especially in Nordic countries. As a result, a CHP plant
would not operate at full capacity for about 150 days a year. The sea-
sonal variation in heat demand provides the heat sink and offers an
C.A. Salman et al.
opportunity to use the excess heat from CHP plant during off-peak in
different processes. This provision of heat sink also offers the niche for
researchers to develop integrated thermochemical processes with CHP
plant with transferring excess heat during off-peak hours to integrated
thermochemical processes such as gasification or pyrolysis. Various
researchers studied the polygeneration process with integration of
torrefaction and pyrolysis process with CHP plant [18,19], but the
retrofit of gasification process with CHP plant provides the more in-
tegrated approach and the syngas produced from gasification can syn-
thesize various products [20]. One way to design gasification based
polygeneration facilities is to integrate the fluidized bed combustor of
the CHP plant with a fluidized bed gasifier to transfer the unreacted
char from gasifier to combustor and provide the necessary heat
[7,20–24]. Hyene et al. [22] reported the overall increase of efficiency
for the integrated gasification-CHP polygeneration process as compared
to the stand-alone. They further stated that the process integration is
largely dependent on the capacity of the existing boiler and integrated
gasification facility. Gustavsson et al. estimated the greater energy ef-
ficiency of gasification integrated process with the existing CHP plants
and pulp and paper processes for the synthesis of liquid biofuels such,
e.g., Fischer-Tropsch fuel along with synthetic natural gas [20].
The previous studies [20–23] for process integrated CHP-gasifica-
tion processes mainly consider wood-based biomass as the feedstock for
either stand-alone or polygeneration system design and analysis. This
study considers RDF as a potential fuel for technical and economic
analysis. RDF is different than wood regarding important parameters
such as; it has more moisture content and lesser heating value than
wood, and more impurities in the syngas is produced by RDF gasifica-
tion than wood. There is a research niche to design processes for RDF
utilization and conversion to bioproducts. Moreover, previous men-
tioned studies mainly integrate CHP with gasification to analyze bio-
methane or hydrogen as a final product along with heat and power.
Gustavsson et al. [20] analyze and compare the methanol and Fischer-
Tropsch fuel through integrating gasification with the fluidized boiler
of CHP plant but the analysis is limited to technical results. Further-
more, previous studies for process integration of gasification with CHP
Fig. 1. Research framework used for techno-economic analysis of CHP-gasification integrated polygeneration facility.
118
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
plant does not consider the seasonal variations in heat and power de-
mand of CHP plant throughout the year and their analysis are limited to
steady state modelling, and results give the energy efficiency for the
fixed capacity of the gasifier for process integration [7,17,20–23]. An-
other issue with stand-alone or process integration is the determination
of optimum size for technical and economic analysis. This study took
the different path for the determination of the optimum size of poly-
generation system by considering the variation in annual operational
data of a real CHP plant with detailed modelling methods. The gasifiers
selected are of flexible size gasifiers i.e., gasification process only use
the excess heat after fulfilling the heat demand and the production of
biofuels varies with the annual heat demand. The annual energy effi-
ciency is then reported for whole polygeneration process. This research
work attempts to consider all above mentioned knowledge gaps and
provides novel insights into integrating existing technologies for the
efficient utilization of RDF waste feedstocks, the effect of seasonal
variations of CHP plant on the process integration, and maximum ca-
pacities of gasifiers that can be integrated with CHP plants and subse-
quently produce DME or methanol. To the best of authors’ knowledge,
this is the first attempt to report the operational and profitability ana-
lysis for DME or methanol production through process integration CHP
plants with flexible capacity gasifiers. The technical results are further
complemented by the detailed economic analysis and determination of
probabilistic profitability of process integration via Monte Carlo simu-
lations. The study will also provide the base for the future designing and
operation of new integrated polygeneration processes.
2. Methodology
This section explains the methodology adopted for the techno-eco-
nomic analysis of polygeneration processes. Polygeneration processes
are developed by integrating the CHP plant with gasification process.
The syngas obtained from the gasification process is then upgraded to
biofuels (methanol and DME). Both mass and heat integration approach
is employed for design of CHP-gasification integrated polygeneration
process. The boiler of the CHP plant provides the necessary heat for the
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

gasification process by circulating the unreacted residual char with bed Table 1
material from gasifier to combustor. The CHP plant exports the steam Main operating parameters for reference CHP plant and feed compo-
required for RDF drying, gasification, tar reforming, and water gas shift sition of waste used for process modelling and simulation [25].
(WGS) reaction. Waste heat from gasification is also recovered in some Operating parameters of CHP plant
of the processes e.g. syngas cooling, exothermic biofuel processes and
cooling of biofuels. The heat from gasification process is recovered as Boiler max steam capacity, kg/s 56
Steam turbine inlet pressure, bar 70
superheated steam with steam turbine inlet conditions and transferred
Steam turbine inlet temperature, °C 470
to the CHP plant. An actual CHP plant process parameters and opera- Boiler efficiency,% 90
tional data are used for the design and evaluation of polygeneration Maximum heat generation, MW 100
plant. Simulations give the mass and energy balance results to assess Maximum power, MW 50
Average heat generation in 2016, MW1 81
and compare the technical feasibility of polygeneration processes. The
Average power production in 2016, MW1 37
technical results are used as a basis for the detailed economic evalua-
tion of considered biofuels. Fig. 1 shows the research framework used in 1
This is the average output taken from the real operational data
the study. from CHP plant when the plant is running; it should also be noted that
For the base case, a fluidized bed boiler of an existing CHP plant average monthly production of both heat and power is varied
located in Västerås, Sweden is considered for the integration of the throughout the year.
gasification process (Fig. 2). The boiler has a maximum capacity of
56 kg/s of superheated steam at 70 bar and 470 °C. The simplified Table 2
diagram for the CHP plant is presented in Fig. 2. Table 1 summarizes Ultimate and proximate analysis of RDF waste biomass used for modelling and
the important operating data of the CHP plant used for modelling and simulation [24].
simulation. Ultimate and proximate analysis of RDF feedstock is taken Ultimate analysis, wt.%
from [24] and shown in Table 2. C 52.9, H 7.3, N 1.6, S 0.5, Cl 1.1, O 36.6

Proximate analysis, wt.%

2.1. Integration approach and process design of polygeneration plants
Fig. 3 depicts the layout of the polygeneration process to produce
DME, heat, and power and the design approach for polygeneration of
methanol with CHP process is shown in Fig. 4. The modelling and
process simulation of the polygeneration process is carried out by using
the flow sheet based commercial software Aspen Plus® [26].
Drying of waste biomass from an initial 40% moisture content to the
final 10% moisture is carried out via steam drying. The CHP plant
provides the steam required for drying. Dried RDF is then gasified to
generate syngas. This work considers the dual fluidized bed gasification
(DFBG) technology as a reference technology to integrate with CHP.
The fluidized bed of gasifier integrates with the fluidized bed boiler of
the reference CHP plant and generate syngas from the gasification of
RDF. The boiler of the CHP plant provides the necessary heat and steam
required for RDF gasification. The validated model for the gasification
and CHP plant was developed before by authors, and the same models
are used in this work [24]. Table 3 provides the more details about the
input parameters used for the gasifier, DME, methanol and CHP models.
Post-treatment of syngas includes tar reforming, cooling, WGS re-
actor, and cleaning. In the model, the CHP plant exports the steam
required for reforming and the RStoich block of Aspen Plus® model the
tar reforming reactor. In this study, 100% reforming of all the tar to CO
and H2 is assumed for simplicity [27]. Waste heat is recovered in the
form of superheated steam at the inlet conditions of steam turbine of
the CHP plant by cooling the syngas to 350 °C. For the synthesis of DME,
Ash1 15%, Moisture1 40%, LHV2 12 MJ/kg
1
Ash and moisture content on a dry basis.
2
Lower heating value on the as received basis.
the H2/CO ratio of syngas should be equivalent to 1–1.5 and 2 for the
methanol production [11]. The RGibbs block of Aspen plus model the
WGS reactor by considering the equilibrium conditions. The WGS re-
action (R3) takes place at ∼350 °C by using the steam from the CHP
plant and adjusts the H2/CO ratio of the syngas. Design block of Aspen
Plus® adjusts the steam to CO mole ratio for the WGS reactor to achieve
the desirable H2/CO ratio for both processes [11]. After the WGS re-
actor, the syngas is then cleaned from H2S and CO2 in the acid gas
removal (AGR) section. Syngas cleaning through AGR is only modelled
to estimate the heat balance, and for simplicity of the process 100%
removal of H2S and 98% removal of CO2 is assumed. However, for
process integration, the heat required for CO2 removal is as taken as
4 MJ/kg of CO2 removed. [28].
Syngas converts to methanol in one-step reaction and to DME in a
two-step reaction as discussed by Clausen et al. [12]. In the first step,
syngas reacts to produce methanol by R1 followed by the dehydration
of methanol to DME by R2. The WGS reaction also occurs in the reactor.
4H2 + 2CO → 2CH3OH ΔH = −181.6 kJ (R1)
2CH3OH → CH3OCH3 + H2O ΔH = −23.4 kJ (R2)

Fig. 2. Flow sheet of the base case CHP plant selected for the process integration.

119
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Fig. 3. Flow sheet for process integration of CHP with gasification for heat, power, and DME synthesis.

CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 ΔH = −41 kJ (R3) 2.2. Integration cases and energetic efficiency

The syngas is compressed to 56 bar for the synthesis of DME. Syngas

For the base case, the yearly operational data of CHP plant from
is then cooled to the required temperature for the production of DME
2016 is considered for CHP-gasification integration. Two different in-
and heat is recovered as steam. The DME process is modelled by using
tegrated cases are designed for operational analysis [24]. In both cases,
the RGibbs block of Aspen Plus which restricts the chemical equilibrium
the CHP plant fulfills the necessary heat demand as per reference. The
at a temperature and pressure specified for the desired chemical reac-
flexible capacity gasification process is considered for both cases, i.e., in
tions. The temperature and pressure in DME synthesis reactor are
both cases, annual heat production from CHP plant is not disturbed or
considered as 240 °C and 56 bar respectively.
varied from the real plant production data, and only excess heat is
For the synthesis of Methanol (R1) and (R3) is used for the simu-
transferred to run the gasification process. Fig. 5 explains both cases in
lation. The RGibbs block of Aspen Plus models the methanol production
the more explicit way.
through syngas by assuming that the process achieves the chemical
equilibrium. The reaction temperature of 220 °C and 96 bar pressure is
Case 1: In this scenario, the CHP plant operates on full load. CHP
used [12].
plant generates the district heat and electric power production as
The product gases obtained from the DME synthesis reactors are
per reference CHP plant case (Fig. 5(a)). The flexible gasifier capa-
then condensed to −37 °C in a series of heat exchangers to separate the
city is selected for this case. The gasifier and biofuel production only
unreacted gases with DME. For methanol, the product gases after the
utilize the excess heat from CHP plant. The heat and power are
reactor are cooled to 20 °C. The CO2 stripper is not modeled, and 98%
considered as the primary products in this case with biofuel as a by-
removal of CO2 is assumed, and the heat required for CO2 removal is as
product.
assumed to be 4 MJ/kg of CO2 removed for process integration design
Case 2: In this scenario, the CHP plant operates at full load
[28]. The liquid products (DME/methanol) is then sent to the distilla-
throughout the year. However, CHP covers only district heat as per
tion unit to collect the high purity product. The distillation unit is
reference case. Electric power is not considered as a primary product
modelled by the flash separator block of Aspen plus. The main oper-
(Fig. 5(b)). The flexible gasifier capacity is selected for this case. The
ating parameters and process design parameters are presented in
gasifier and biofuel production utilize all the excess heat from CHP
Table 3.
plant after the plant fulfills the district heat load. The heat is

120
C.A. Salman et al.
Fig. 4. Flow sheet for process integration of CHP with gasification for heat, power, and Methanol synthesis.
considered as the primary product here too, but the production of
methanol or DME is prioritized over electric power in this case.
Eq. (1) determines the performance of the polygeneration plant
while Eqs. (2) and (3) used for the determination of standalone CHP
plant and standalone biofuel (DME/Methanol) plant efficiency respec-
tively.
EfficiencyPolygeneration = (district heat + electric power + bio fuel)
/(waste biomass )
EfficiencyCHP = (district heat + electric power )/(waste biomass )
Efficiencystand alone biofuel = (biofuel + heat recovered )/(waste biomass
+ heat required + power required )
where district heat, electric power, and biofuel are the outputs of the
polygeneration plant in MW and waste biomass is the input for the
plant also in MW. In Eq. (3), the heat required is net heat utilized by
drying, gasifier, tar reforming, and WGS reactor.
2.3. Economic analysis
The detailed economic analysis of the polygeneration systems has
been carried out by following the procedure explained by Turton et al.
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
[30]. The individual base costs are taken for certain capacity from
previously published data [31,33–36]. Table 7 reports the basis used to
estimate the capital investment for all the cases. The maximum size of
equipment is used as the capacity for each scenario. The annual oper-
ating and maintenance (O&M) costs are taken as a fraction of fixed
capital investments (FCI). The cost of each equipment was then scaled
by using the equation (4).
n
⎛ Capacitybase ⎞
Costsystem = Costbase ⎜
(1) Capacitysystem ⎟ (4)
⎝ ⎠
(2)
where base cost and capacity are taken from the published literature
and presented in Table 4. ‘n’ is the scaling factors with a range between
0.6 and 0.8. In order to take account the inflation and make consistent
(3) cost estimates with currency and current year, Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) is applied by using Eq. (5) [31]. For this study,
CEPCI for the year 2016 has been considered where indirect costs have
been added for each equipment along with contingencies and installa-
tion costs. The total module cost is determined by Eqs. (4) and (5). The
indirect costs of up to 30–50% of capital investments are taken for each
module [32]. The contingency and retrofitting costs of 20% each is then
added to determine the FCI, while working capital investment (WCI) is
assumed to be 15% of FCI [32].
121
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Table 3
Main process design parameters and inputs used for the process modelling and simulation of polygeneration systems.
Process Parameter inputs and assumptions

Gasification and biofuel synthesis

Drying Drying of RDF waste biomass from 40 wt% to 10 wt% using steam from the CHP plant
DFBG RYield reactor to decompose the biomass into its constituent elements through calculator block
Devolatilization: RYield connected with calculator block at a temperature of 700 °C with correlations taken from [24]
Gasification: RCSTR with first-order kinetic reactions [24]. Steam is used as the gasification medium. Steam/biomass ration of 0.4 is fed. The residence
time is selected to give the finite time to achieve 50% char conversion [29]. The unreacted char and sand are re-circulated into the reactor through a cyclone
separator
Tar reformer RStoic. Steam required1 for tar reforming is taken from the CHP plant and calculated by the design specification block of Aspen Plus [22]
WGS reactor RGibbs reactor at temperature ∼350 °C to achieve H2: CO = 1:1.5 for DME and 2:1 for methanol, the model estimate the steam required2 and the CHP
plant exports the required steam.
Compressors Compression of syngas to 56 bar for DME and 95 bar for methanol synthesis with an isentropic efficiency of 80% and mechanical efficiency of 95%. The
design of the compressors are beyond the scope of this paper, and they are assumed to be installed with intercoolers [27]
DME synthesis RGibbs reactor at an isothermal temperature of 240 °C and 56 bar. The heat from exothermic reaction is recovered in the form of superheated steam3 and
sent to CHP plant [22]
Methanol synthesis RGibbs reactor at an isothermal temperature of 220 °C and 96 bar. The heat from exothermic reaction is recovered in the form of superheated steam3 and
sent to CHP plant [22]

CHP Plant: Combustion and heat recovery steam generation (HRSG) section
Air preheater Heating of air required for combustor to 250 °C
Combustor RYield reactor to decompose the biomass into its constituent elements through calculator block
RStoic reactor with combustion reactions.
Superheater1 Superheating of the steam to 470 °C at 70 bar
1
Evaporator Outlet with 100% vapor
1
Economizer Heat incoming water to 150 °C
Steam Turbine Steam inlet at 70 bar and 470 °C, with an isentropic efficiency of 80% and mechanical efficiency of 95% [27]
Condenser2 Condensation of steam to liquid water. The released heat is distributed to the district heating network
Pump Pumping of liquid water back to the economizer at 70 bar

1,2
The heat exchanger block of Aspen Plus is used to model syngas cooling after gasifier, WGS and DME reactor and HRSG section and condensation of steam after
steam turbine to provide district heating.

CEPCIY and N denotes a project lifetime of 20 years. For the assessment of the
Cost €,YearX = Cost €,YearY ×
CEPCIX (5) economic performance of process integration, economic indicators such
as net annual profit (NAP), the rate of return (ROR), payback period
AIC is the annualized investment cost and is calculated by solving
(PBP) and net present value (NPV) are also estimated by Eqs. (9), (8),
the following equation:
(10) and (11) respectively.
AIC = TCI × CRF (6)
NAP = Pbiofuel·Cbiofuel−Iwaste ·Cwaste−Ipower ·Cpower −O & M (8)
CRF is the capital recovery factor, which is calculated by solving the
N = final
following equation: Rt
NPV = ∑ (1 + i) N
i (1 + i) N N =0 (9)
CRF =
i (1 + i) N −1 (7) FCIdepreciable
PBP =
where i, which corresponds to the interest rate, is assumed to be ∼8%, NAP (10)

Fig. 5. (a) DH load duration curve, electricity generation curve and excess heat available for biofuel production – Case 1. (b) DH load duration curve and excess heat
available for biofuels and electricity production – Case 2.

122
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Table 4 For Monte Carlo analysis, random numbers are generated for the
Base capital costs for main modules of gasification plant for biofuel (DME/ important variables and the simulations have been performed for all the
methanol) synthesis. random generated variables. 100,000 random numbers were generated
Equipment Base capacity Year Scaling Base cost, Ref. for biofuel cost and production, manufacturing costs, and discount rate
factor Million Euro and the effect on economic parameters such as NPV and ROR has been
investigated as a result. Distribution of these parameters is selected on
Feed preparation1 198.1 t/h 2007 0.62 3.5 [33]
prior knowledge and literature. Table 6 presents the main assumptions
biomass
Dryer 1 × 106 m3/h 2003 0.77 0.72 [31] used for the Monte Carlo simulations of the economic performance of
Cooling/cleaning 483 MW 2007 0.5 173 [33] plants.
biomass
Tar reformer 31,000 kmol/h 2007 0.72 93.7 [33]
3. Results
syngas
Water gas shift 815 MW 2007 0.67 3.4 [33]
reactor biomass This section describes the results obtained from the operational
DME reactor 2.7 kmol 2010 0.65 8.2 [34] analysis of CHP-gasification process integration concepts. The results
syngas are presented in three subsections. The first part provides the basic
Methanol reactor 5000 Tpd 2005 0.67 65 [35]
results from modelling and simulation of developed polygeneration
Distillation tower 5000 Tpd 2005 0.67 13 [36]
Flash tank 8.85 m3 2010 0.67 0.013 [31] processes such as mass and energy flows among the processes followed
Scrubber 200 m3/h 2010 0.6 0.4 [31] by the annual production potential of polygeneration systems and en-
MEA CO2 removal 0.5 kg/s CO2 2010 0.7 5.19 [36] ergy efficiencies of studied cases. The second part explains the results
removal
obtained from the economic analysis for all studied concepts.
Compressor2 10 MWelectric 2007 0.7 6.31 [31]
Uncertainty about economic analysis through sensitivity and Monte
1
Feed preparation includes unloading, receiving and storage of waste. Carlo simulation are then described in the third subsection.
2
Compressor costs are added for syngas compression for DME/Methanol
synthesis. 3.1. Energetic efficiency

NAP
ROR = %
TCI (11)
where Cx represents the annual cost in €/MWh for biofuel, biomass,
and power respectively, Pbiofuel represents the production of DME/me-
thanol in MWh per year while Ix denotes the consumption of waste
biomass and power to run the gasification process. It should be noted
that consumption of biomass is taken as cumulative to produce biofuel
and excess heat required to produce from CHP plant to run the gasifi-
cation process. In Eq. (9) Rt is the cash flow during the project life cycle,
N and i denotes the discount rate. The key input values used for eco-
nomic assessment are shown in Table 5.
2.4. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation
The raw material considered for the modelling and simulation is
RDF waste, for which the cost is −12€/MWh [24]. However, after the
addition of pre-treatment and handling costs, the base price of biomass
should increase. Hence, this work considers 0€/MWh as the cost of RDF
for economic analysis. To carry out the economic analysis for new and
pre-mature processes, it is very important to measure and report the
uncertainties of technological advancements related to the process and
also the future variation in prices of raw materials and products. In this
study, sensitivity analysis coupled with Monte Carlo simulations is
applied to measure the probability of future uncertainty in economic
analysis for liquid biofuel production through proposed process in-
tegration with existing CHP plant.
Sensitivity analysis has been carried out to measure the variation of
important parameters on economic indicators such as biofuel prices,
variation in biofuel production, operating hours, TCI, and annualized
costs. Sensitivity analysis gives the uncertainty by measuring the in-
fluence of only one parameter on economic indicators. In order to
measure the combined effect of these important variables on the eco-
nomic performance of process integration, Monte Carlo simulations are
performed. The Monte Carlo simulations predict the economic in-
dicators for uncertainty in economic indicators by generating random
Table 7 displays the simulation results in the form of energy inputs
and outputs. The stand-alone efficiency of CHP (81%) plant is higher
than the polygeneration plant efficiency for both DME (65–67%) and
methanol (65–68%) production with heat and power. Presence of flue
gas condenser unit in CHP plant is the main cause of its higher effi-
ciency than polygeneration systems. However, the polygeneration ef-
ficiencies are greater than the stand-alone efficiencies for DME (51%)
and methanol (53%) production. One of the main reason for lower
stand-alone DME and methanol plant efficiencies is the lesser heat in-
tegration level for energy demanding processes such as drying, tar re-
forming, WGS, and gasifier itself. The stand-alone process itself does not
fulfill the heat demand of DME or methanol process, and a significant
portion of biomass needs to be burned to make the stand-alone DME or
methanol process self-energy sufficient. Furthermore, the requirement
of electric power is also quite high to run the stand-alone processes, and
this power has to be purchased or produced in the plant itself to run the
process, and it will also affect the economics of stand-alone processes.
The methanol production shows better conversion efficiencies than
DME production for both the studies cases 1 and 2. In case 1, where the
CHP plant operates at full load to meet the yearly demand of heat and
power as per base case (Fig. 5(a)), the polygeneration of DME along
with heat and power gives 67% efficiency as compared to 68% for
methanol production. The case 2, where CHP operates to only fulfill the
heat demand as per base case (Fig. 5(b)), the integrated polygeneration
Table 5
Important parameters and assumptions used for the economic analysis of pro-
cess integration cases.
Parameters Value Ref
Operating hours 8000 Assumed
Retrofitting costs,% of Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) 20 Assumed
Working capital investment, WCI,% of FCI 15 [32]
O&M costs,% of FCI 4 [30]
Plant economic life, years 20 [30]
Construction period, years 3 [30]
Discount rate, I% 5 [37]

values of parameters and analyzing the uncertainty in the process and Prices
give the profitable probability for the designed processes [41]. The RDF waste, Euro/MWh −12 [24]
Electricity, Euro/MWh 50 [38]
sensitivity analysis results are taken as a basis for the Monte Carlo
DME, Euro/MWh 106 [39]
analysis to check the profitability of the liquid biofuel production Methanol, Euro/MWh 64 [40]
through process introduction in the longer run.

123
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Table 6 gasification integration to produce liquid biofuels. Hence, detailed

Assumptions used for the Monte Carlo simulations for profitability analysis. economic analysis was performed to analyze the economic potential
Parameter Uncertainty through random generation of values and profitability of proposed polygeneration process. Due to the flexible
configuration of gasifier capacity, all the economic indicators are re-
Biofuel cost and Uniform distribution with a maximum value of ported on a specific basis, i.e., per cost/MWh production of studied
production +25% and a minimum value of −25% of base
biofuels DME and methanol.
biofuel cost
Manufacturing cost Uniform distribution with a maximum value of
Total capital investments (TCI) for both polygeneration processes
+25% and a minimum value of −25% of base are estimated for each case, and Fig. 7 presents the results. The TCI is
biomass cost higher for the gasification section and biofuel synthesis due to the
Discount rate Normal distribution with a mean of 5% and std. dev presence of main equipments such as gasifier and biofuel synthesis re-
1.5%
actor. TCI costs are also somewhat considerable for the contingency and
retrofitting parts. The TCI for the production of DME case 2 (482 Euro/
Table 7
MWh) and methanol case 2 (407 Euro/MWh) are lower than DME case
Average energy flow among the different process concepts of polygeneration 1 (672 Euro/MWh) and methanol case 1 (565 Euro/MWh). The TCI per
systems for heat, power, and biofuel production. MWh of methanol production is slightly lower than TCI for DME pro-
duction due to the additional synthesis reactor and condensation unit
CHP CHP-DME CHP-Methanol
for DME process.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 To further assess the economic potential of these processes, other
important economic indicators such as NAP, NPV, ROR, and PBP has
RDF waste input, MW 185 243 266 247 276 been estimated through cash flow and discounted cash flow methods,
Heat sent to gasification1, MW – −13.4 −18.7 −12.9 −17.7
and Fig. 8 displays the results. The results show that the case 1 with
Heat generated by gasification2, MW – 2 2.7 2.7 4
Electric power to gasifier3, MW – −7.3 −10.1 −7.3 −10.6 either DME or methanol production does not give the good economic
District heat, MW 100 84.5 81 85 80 potential. Among all the studied options, DME with case 2 depicts best
Electric power, MW 50 37.6 34.8 37.6 34.4 economic performance as compared with other process schemes. Even
Biofuel, MW – 42 58.5 45.7 66.3
though, DME produced in lesser quantity than methanol, the annual
Stand-alone efficiency,% 81 51 51 53 53
Polygeneration efficiency,% – 67 65 68 65
profit obtained for DME is higher than methanol for both cases i.e.
annual profit of 19–30 Euro/MWh for DME and 8–16 Euro/MWh for
1
The heat required for gasification-DME synthesis process mainly steam methanol is obtained. The high selling price of DME is the main cause
consumed by drying, gasifier, tar reforming, and WGS reaction. for greater revenues than methanol. For the case 2, the NPV for DME
2
The heat is recovered from syngas cooling after gasification, WGS reactor, (195 Euro/MWh) is almost 3-fold than methanol (61 Euro/MWh) and
and compressor and DME synthesis reactor. ROR for DME (9.5%) is more or less double than methanol (5%). This is
3
The power required for gasifier mainly consumed by compressors and again due to the high competitive price of DME as compared to the
condensers. methanol. For the profitability of any process, the ROR should be higher
than the discount rate used for the calculations. In this study, the dis-
process gives marginally lesser efficiencies for both DME and methanol count rate used as 5% for economic performance of polygeneration
production, i.e., 65% and 66% respectively. processes. ROR is greater than the assumed discount rate for case 2
Although, the steady-state simulation gives the higher stand-alone DME (9.5%) and equivalent to case 2 methanol process (5%) and a bit
efficiency of CHP than polygeneration processes for DME or methanol. higher in case 1 DME process (5.5%), however ROR is very lower in
But, one of the main aims of this work is to increase the operational case 1 methanol process (2.5%) than assumed discount rate. Only DME
capacity of CHP throughout the year by producing the biofuels. The production with case 2 shows considerable higher ROR than assumed
CHP plant has a capacity of 100 MW district heat and 50 MW electric discount rate and indicates the profitability of polygeneration process.
power. However, in 2016 the plant operates to produce on average Methanol production in case 1 shows very less ROR and NPV while very
81 MW heat and 37 MW electric power. If the running potential and high PBP of 16 years. For case 2, the PBP for DME process is ∼7 years
actual running time of CHP plant are also taken into consideration, then and for methanol is ∼9 years. Overall the case 2 shows better economic
the yearly efficiency of CHP is 64% (Fig. 6). The annual production of performance than case 1 for biofuel production through process in-
both biofuels, i.e., DME and methanol for both case 1 and case 2 are tegration. And if the results are compared individually to each biofuels,
also presented and compared in Fig. 6 for 8000 annual operating hours. DME gives more profitable economic performance than methanol.
Case 2 shows that the annual production of either DME (448 GWh) or
methanol (528 GWh) is higher as compared to the case 1 which gives
336 GWh DME and 366 GWh methanol annually. This is expected as
case 1 prioritize the power production over biofuel while in case 2
biofuel is the primary product and electric power is secondary. In case
2, CHP plant is capable of exporting almost double the heat to gasifi-
cation and biofuel production process as compared with case 1, hence
the higher biofuels production in case 2. It should be noted that in both
cases annual heat production from CHP plant is not disturbed or varied
from the real plant production and only excess heat is utilized to run the
gasification process. The amount of methanol is marginally greater than
DME for both cases; this is due to the reason that production of DME is
carried out by two-step synthesis reaction which results in the lower
conversion efficiencies of fuel as compared with the methanol pro-
duction reaction which can occur through single reaction approach.

3.2. Economic performance of polygeneration processes

Fig. 6. Annual production of energy contents and energy efficiency for each
The technical results alone do not provide the full feasibility of CHP- case studied with 8000 operating hours.

124
C.A. Salman et al.
Fig. 7. Capital investment distribution among main processes for studied cases
per MWh of DME and methanol production.
Fig. 8. Economic indicators distribution and comparison for each process
concept studied.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations
The economic indicators explained in the previous section illustrates
the profitability potential of studied cases. DME shows the greater
economic performance than methanol in a CHP-gasification integrated
process. However, the economic analysis performed is based on fixed
costs selected from a various set of assumptions from previously pub-
lished data and current raw materials and products prices has been used
to assess these processes. To consider the future fluctuations in these
costs and disturbance in operating parameters, sensitivity analysis is
Fig. 9. Effect of important parameters on net present value and rate of return for DME production through process integration with CHP.
125
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
conducted for both biofuels. Key variables are identified, and their
values are changed by the factor of ± 25% and their effect on NPV and
ROR is reported for both DME and methanol production. The variables
selected for sensitivity analysis are DME/methanol production and cost,
biomass cost, annual costs to run the process, TCI, and operating hours
for the plant. The results are presented for DME production in Fig. 9 and
methanol process in Fig. 10. The proposed polygeneration processes
shows high dependency on assumed prices for biofuels and biomass.
Variation in total capital costs and annual operation cost also shows
significant change in economic indicators, but the effect is lesser than
raw material and biofuel prices. For the polygeneration of DME, the
selling cost and operating hours have the main influence on NPV and
ROR. The analysis indicates that up to 180% change in NPV and 55%
change in ROR can happen by the ± 25% variation of DME cost and
production. Results also reveal that change in biomass cost also gives
variation in both NPV and ROR for DME production, but the effect is
less than DME cost. The TCI and annual costs for the DME production
process are also important factors and affect the economic performance
of the DME production through process integration with CHP plant.
The methanol production process also shows similar sensitive be-
havior for selected parameters, but the effect of methanol price and
production shows less variation in NPV and ROR, i.e., 100% and 90%
respectively. But, methanol prices have a lesser effect on the economic
performance of integrated polygeneration processes than the DME
process. However, a certain change in TCI and annual costs affect the
NPV and ROR of methanol production more than it affects for DME.
The sensitivity analysis gives the important key volatile variables as
the discount rate, manufacturing cost, and biofuel and biomass cost
which can affect the economic performance of polygeneration pro-
cesses. For the uncertainty analysis, Monte Carlo simulations are con-
ducted to measure the simultaneous effect of above-mentioned para-
meters on the economic profitability of polygeneration processes. The
random numbers of these key variables such as discount rate, manu-
facturing cost, and biofuel and biomass cost are generated. These
generations are used as an input data for Monte Carlo simulations. The
simulations are performed for 100,000 iterations to generate the
probable effect of the discount rate, manufacturing cost, and biofuel
and biomass cost on the NPV and ROR as a result. Matlab is used to
perform the simulations and analyze the results.
Figs. 11 and 12 displays the probability distribution curve for NPV
and ROR achieved for DME and methanol production respectively. The
NPV for DME production gives narrow probability curve with > 90%
generation of positive NPV. The narrow curve also indicates the less
variation of economic performance of DME process over the uncertain
future prices and market conditions. The ROR for DME shows the
average value of 7.4% with standard deviation of 3.5% and with
only < 5% generation of negative ROR from 100,000 iterations. For the
Monte Carlo simulation of methanol production, the probability curve
C.A. Salman et al. Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128

Fig. 10. Effect of important parameters on net present value and rate of return for methanol production through process integration with CHP.

Fig. 11. Profitability analysis of DME production by checking the uncertainty of revenues, manufacturing cost and discount rate on net present value and rate of
return.

distribution for NPV is wider with quite a high generation of negative
NPV values. The mean ROR for methanol is 4.7% which is slightly lesser
than the assumed discount rate of 5%. Approximate 30% generation of
ROR and NPV for methanol shows negative values which give the idea
of volatile nature of methanol production through process integration
of CHP.
4. Discussion
This research work provides novel insights and pathways to syn-
thesize renewable bio-products by integrating and retrofitting existing
CHP plant with gasification process. The proposed integrated approach
and operational analysis will not only help to shape future process

Fig. 12. Profitability analysis of Methanol production by checking the uncertainty of revenues, manufacturing cost and discount rate on net present value and rate of
return.

126
C.A. Salman et al.
industries but will also aid in mitigating the global emissions. However,
these process simulation studies also depend on numerous inputs taken
from published literature and assumptions. The model for CHP and
gasification are adapted from our earlier work [24] where we validated
the gasifier and CHP models with experimental and real plant data,
respectively. For the synthesis of DME and methanol, the stand-alone
energetic efficiency results are compared with the previously published
data [11,12,16]. They reported the stand-alone efficiency of DME and
methanol processes are 53% and 54% respectively. The stand-alone
efficiencies for DME and methanol plant calculated by the model in this
study are 51% and 53% respectively, which are reasonably comparable
to the previously mentioned studies. To overcome the uncertainty of
economic analysis, a detailed economic analysis of the proposed system
is coupled with the extensive sensitivity analysis through Monte Carlo
simulations. This also helped us to assess the probability of profitability
potential to produce methanol or DME by process integration of gasi-
fication with CHP plant. The economic results obtained for both DME
and methanol varied with the previously published results. This is
mainly due to the different set of assumptions, and flexible nature of
processes consider here as compared to the standalone plant config-
uration approached in previous studies. The other reason for this dif-
ference is the flexible configuration for integration used for this analysis
as compared to the fixed capacity plants in previous studies.
The study considers the Swedish market and conditions into con-
text. The main assumption and hypothesis considered are that the
variation in seasonal heat demand to provide the heat sink. The excess
heat can run the thermochemical gasification process to produce bio-
fuels through process integration with CHP plants. Technical analysis
assumes the CHP operational conditions of 2016. There might be more
reduction in average annual heat demand in future due to the high
energy efficiencies, and better insulation of residential buildings, etc.
However, according to a recent report on the overall heating market in
Sweden, despite the 20% increase of the population of Sweden by 2050,
the expected heat demand in residential building will reach to 70–90
TWh by 2050 as compared to current 90 TWh heat demand [42]. Also,
the amount of waste biomass is will also increase in the future. These
factors emphasize the importance of new flexible designs for poly-
generation of heat, power, and biofuels. The encouraging economic
results of these flexible polygeneration processes will also make these
integrated polygeneration processes attractive for various stakeholders
to invest and at the same time decarbonize the energy sector.
The raw material used in this work is RDF. RDF is considered as low-
grade biomass. The current price of RDF is −12 Euro/MWh. After
transportation and pre-treatment the price becomes 0 Euro/MWh [21].
The sensitivity analysis shows that the price of raw material is an im-
portant factor in the overall economics of the integrated system. As
mentioned earlier, the study has taken Swedish market as a basis, but, if
we briefly look into the warmer regions where heat is usually not a
required product, and only power production is the main priority. The
cogeneration or polygeneration integration scenarios with power and
biofuels can also be interesting to assess further. Holmgren et al. [43]
reported that with the increase of CO2 emission prices the cost of bio-
mass would also increase in future especially in places where coal
power plants are installed, and prices will decrease in areas where bio-
refineries are installed. Also, the rise of solar and wind energy will
cause the further reduction of electricity prices. This suggests that the
use of biomass should not only focus on heat and power production, but
further options must be explored to convert the biomass into gaseous
and liquid biofuels.
In our previous work [24], we considered the production of bio-
methane as a potential product by retrofitting the gasifier with an ex-
isting CHP plant. The economic results obtained were more feasible for
biomethane than the DME and methanol. The main reason for this is the
already established market and stable prices for biomethane than liquid
biofuels and also the high conversion and technical efficiency of bio-
methane production through biomass gasification process. However, if
127
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
the future trends and predictions are taken into considerations the rise
of electric vehicles and other renewable energy resources will definitely
affect the demand for fuel for passenger vehicles. But, the demand for
liquid biofuels will also surge in future due to its multi-applications in
both energy sector and chemical industries. Also, IEA states that the
production of oil will continue its growth and peak around 2040 they
further forecast that the low demand of passenger vehicle fuel will be
offset by the high demand of other sectors and industries such as pet-
rochemicals and large vehicle fleets. Biofuels industry should mature
around that time to meet these demands [4].
Apart from the better utilization of waste biomass and operational
analysis of CHP plant process integration with gasification, a secondary
aim of the study was to provide an option of replacing petroleum-based
fuels with liquid biofuels. Hence, current prices and future forecast of
gasoline and diesel prices are an important aspect to consider also.
Moreover, for the replacement of biofuels with current gasoline, the
replacement cost of existing pump in gas stations to DME/methanol-
compatible must also be considered. According to report, the replace-
ment cost for methanol-compatible pumps in a gas station is 2000 USD/
pump [44]. The applications for methanol consumption is wide, and it
can not only be used as a replacement fuel but also for the production of
other useful chemicals with less transportation and terminal costs.
However, its selling price and thermal efficiency are lower than DME
which is also an important aspect to take into account for the re-
placement of current petroleum fuels with biofuels.
5. Conclusion
The problem of seasonal variation of CHP plant and its less oper-
ating hours can be reduced by integrating the gasification process to
produce liquid biofuels. Retrofitting of gasification process with CHP
plant makes the polygeneration process more efficient than the stand-
alone processes. However, the polygeneration efficiency is lower than
the CHP plant. This less efficiency is compensated by the higher number
of annual operating hours of CHP plant with higher economic benefits.
The amount of biofuel produced from polygeneration process depends
on the integrated approach. Quantitative production of biofuel is more
where heat and biofuel are prioritized respectively over electricity. The
methanol gives higher mass output than DME, but energetic values for
both biofuels are similar.
The economic results show the high tendency of net annual profits
and net present value, and rate of return towards DME production than
methanol. With DME as a product, the 10% ROR can achieve with
7 years of PBP while PBP for methanol is up to 10 years with lower
ROR. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations show that DME
production is more economically viable than methanol production. To
make these processes more stable and the prices regulation should be
done of both raw materials and products. Both technical and economic
results determined are of significant importance for the future locali-
zation of gasification-based biofuel production systems through process
integration with CHP plant and the development of energy policy in-
struments towards promoting waste gasification-based biofuels devel-
opment.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation
(20120276) (KKS) and the co-production partners within the frame-
work Future Energy: ABB, Castellum and the VEMM group (VafabMiljö,
Eskilstuna Energi och Miljö, and Mälarenergi).
References
[1] Statista. Daily global crude oil demand 2006–2018. Statistic; 2016. https://www.
statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/ [ac-
cessed January 2, 2018].
C.A. Salman et al.
[2] Fortune. IEA: Oil demand won’t peak before 2040; 2016. http://fortune.com/2016/
11/16/oil-demand-2040/ [accessed January 2, 2018].
[3] BP. BP Energy Outlook 2017. 2017.
[4] IEA. WEO 2017; 2017. https://www.iea.org/weo2017/#section-2-1 [accessed
January 3, 2018].
[5] Arcoumanis C, Bae C, Crookes R, Kinoshita E. The potential of di-methyl ether
(DME) as an alternative fuel for compression-ignition engines: a review. Fuel
2008;87:1014–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.06.007.
[6] Ravaghi-Ardebili Z, Manenti F. Unified modeling and feasibility study of novel
green pathway of biomass to methanol/dimethylether. Appl Energy
2015;145:278–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.019.
[7] Starfelt F, Thorin E, Dotzauer E, Yan J. Performance evaluation of adding ethanol
production into an existing combined heat and power plant. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:613–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.087.
[8] Kourkoumpas DS, Papadimou E, Atsonios K, Karellas S, Grammelis P, Kakaras E.
Implementation of the Power to Methanol concept by using CO2 from lignite power
plants: techno-economic investigation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:16674–87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.07.100.
[9] Peduzzi E, Tock L, Boissonnet G, Maréchal F. Thermo-economic evaluation and
optimization of the thermo-chemical conversion of biomass into methanol. Energy
2013;58:9–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.05.029.
[10] Semelsberger TA, Borup RL, Greene HL. Dimethyl ether (DME) as an alternative
fuel. J Power Sources 2006;156:497–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.
2005.05.082.
[11] Clausen LR, Elmegaard B, Houbak N. Technoeconomic analysis of a low CO2
emission dimethyl ether (DME) plant based on gasification of torrefied biomass.
Energy 2010;35:4831–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.004.
[12] Clausen LR, Elmegaard B, Ahrenfeldt J, Henriksen U. Thermodynamic analysis of
small-scale dimethyl ether (DME) and methanol plants based on the efficient two-
stage gasifier. Energy 2011;36:5805–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.
08.047.
[13] Methanol Institute. DME: an emerging global fuel; 2016.
[14] Yang W, Martin A. Energy and economic assessment of a polygeneration district
heating and cooling system based on gasi fi cation of refuse derived fuels. Energy
2017:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.110.
[15] Tock L, Gassner M, Maréchal F. Thermochemical production of liquid fuels from
biomass: thermo-economic modeling, process design and process integration ana-
lysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:1838–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.
2010.07.018.
[16] Arvidsson M, Haro P, Morandin M, Harvey S. Comparative thermodynamic analysis
of biomass gasification-based light olefin production using methanol or DME as the
platform chemical. Chem Eng Res Des 2016;115:182–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cherd.2016.09.031.
[17] Fryda L, Panopoulos KD, Kakaras E. Integrated CHP with autothermal biomass
gasification and SOFC-MGT. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:281–90. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.06.013.
[18] Kohl T, Laukkanen TP, Järvinen MP. Integration of biomass fast pyrolysis and
precedent feedstock steam drying with a municipal combined heat and power plant.
Biomass Bioenergy 2014;71:413–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.
09.014.
[19] Starfelt F, Tomas Aparicio E, Li H, Dotzauer E. Integration of torrefaction in CHP
plants – a case study. Energy Convers Manag 2015;90:427–35. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.019.
[20] Gustavsson C, Hulteberg C. Co-production of gasification based biofuels in existing
combined heat and power plants – analysis of production capacity and integration
potential. Energy 2016;111:830–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.
027.
[21] Naqvi M, Dahlquist E, Yan J. Complementing existing CHP plants using biomass for
production of hydrogen and burning the residual gas in a CHP boiler. Biofuels
128
Applied Energy 226 (2018) 116–128
2016;7269:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2016.1153362.
[22] Stefan Heyne HTSH. Extending existing combined heat and power plants for syn-
thetic natural gas production. Int J Energy Res 2007;31:135–47. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/er.
[23] Galanti L, Franzoni A, Traverso A, Massardo AF. Existing large steam power plant
upgraded for hydrogen production. Appl Energy 2011;88:1510–8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.11.033.
[24] Chaudhary Awais Salman, Naqvi M, Thorin E, Yan J. Impact of retrofitting existing
combined heat and power plant with polygeneration of biomethane: a comparative
techno-economic analysis of integrating different gasifiers. Energy Convers Manag
2017;152:250–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.022.
[25] Mälarenergi AB. Performance test report for boiler P6; 2016.
[26] Aspentech; n.d. http://www.aspentech.com/ [accessed January 1, 2016].
[27] Heyne S, Thunman H, Harvey S. Exergy-based comparison of indirect and direct
biomass gasification technologies within the framework of bio-SNG production.
Biomass Convers Biorefinery 2013;3:337–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-
013-0079-1.
[28] Desideri U, Paolucci A. Performance modelling of a carbon dioxide removal system
for power plants. Energy Convers Manag 1999;40:1899–915. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0196-8904(99)00074-6.
[29] Pallares D, Johansson R, Larsson A, Lundberg L, Thunman H. Char conversion in
fluidized; 2017.
[30] Turton Richard, Bailie Richard C, Whiting Wallace B, Shaeiwitz JA. Analysis,
synthesis and design of chemical processes; 2009. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
004.
[31] Holmgren KM, Berntsson TS, Andersson E, Rydberg T. Perspectives on investment
cost estimates for gasification-based biofuel production systems. Chem Eng Trans
2015;45:427–32. [IVL B-report B2221].
[32] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers; 1991.
[33] Liu G, Larson ED, Williams RH, Kreutz TG, Guo X. Making Fischer-Tropsch fuels and
electricity from coal and biomass: performance and cost analysis. Energy and Fuels
2011;25:415–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef101184e.
[34] Haro P, Trippe F, Stahl R, Henrich E. Bio-syngas to gasoline and olefins via DME – a
comprehensive techno-economic assessment. Appl Energy 2013;108:54–65. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2013.03.015.
[35] Amirkhas E, Lango T. Methanol production in Trinidad & Tobago final report :
phase II; 2006.
[36] Heyne S, Harvey S. Impact of choice of CO2 separation technology on thermo-
economic performance of Bio-SNG production processes. Int J Energy Resour
2012;33:299–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.3038.
[37] Salkuyeh YK, Adams TA. A new power, methanol, and DME polygeneration process
using integrated chemical looping systems. Energy Convers Manag
2014;88:411–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.039.
[38] Nord Pool; n.d. http://www.nordpoolspot.com/ [accessed November 15, 2016].
[39] Alibaba. Dme dimethyl ether 99.9% – price; 2017. https://www.alibaba.com/
product-detail/DME-dimethyl-ether-99-9-_1513607498.html?spm=a2700.
7724838.35.1.vVV1cV [accessed October 19, 2017].
[40] Corporation M. Pricing-methanol; 2017. https://www.methanex.com/our-
business/pricing [accessed October 19, 2017].
[41] Mun J. Modeling risk: applying Monte Carlo risk simulation, strategic real options,
stochastic forecasting, and portfolio optimization. Wiley; 2010.
[42] Sverige V. The heating market in Sweden – an overall view; 2014.
[43] Holmgren KM, Berntsson TS, Andersson E, Rydberg T. Comparison of integration
options for gasification-based biofuel production systems – economic and green-
house gas emission implications. Energy 2016;111:272–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2016.05.059.
[44] Peter Huang Hongyi, Ju Shao, Tan Hao, Wang Tony Z. The future of methanol fuel;
2015.