i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

A novel process simulation model for hydrogen

production via reforming of biomass gasification
tar

Mohammad Shamsi a, Ahmed Abbas Obaid b, Saman Farokhi c,

Ahmad Bayat d,*
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Al-Qadisiyah, Iraq
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
d
Department of Chemical Engineering, Tafresh University, Tafresh, 39518 79611, Iran

highlights graphical abstract

A novel simulation for hydrogen

production from biomass gasifica-
tion tars developed.

Increase hydrogen production
using a PFR and integrating a CHP
cycle into the process.

Energy efficiency of the process
raised by 63% compared to 29.2%
of the base process.

The total hydrogen production
improved from 0.475 to 0.518 kmol
of (H2)/kmol of tar.

The integrated process of
hydrogen production is carbon
neutral.

article info abstract

Article history: Process modeling and simulation are very important for new designs and estimation of
Received 11 July 2021 operating variables. This study describes a new process for the production of hydrogen
Received in revised form from lignocellulosic biomass gasification tars. The main focus of this research is to increase
24 September 2021 hydrogen production and improve the overall energy efficiency of the process. In this
Accepted 8 October 2021 study, Aspen HYSYS software was used for simulation. The integration structure presented
Available online 12 November 2021 in this research includes sections like tar reforming and ash separation (Ash), combined
heat and power cycle (CHP), hydrogen sulfide removal unit (HRU), water-gas shift (WGS)
Keywords: reactor, and gas compression as well as hydrogen separation from a mixture of gases in
Hydrogen pressure swing adsorption (PSA). It was found that the addition of CHP cycle and the use of
Process simulation the plug flow reactor (PFR) model, firstly, increased the overall energy efficiency of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bayat@tafreshu.ac.ir (A. Bayat).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.055
0360-3199/© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1 773

Aspen HYSYS process by 63% compared to 29.2% of the base process. Secondly it increased the amount of
Tar reforming hydrogen production by 0.518 kmol (H2)/kmol Tar as compared with 0.475 of the base
Biomass gasification process. Process analysis also demonstrated that the integrated process of hydrogen pro-
duction from biomass gasification tars is carbon neutral.
© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

world. These are owing to the benefits of hydrogen: (a) it is

Introduction
The most pressing challenges relating to global energy supply
and demand, include greenhouse gas emissions linked with
rising global energy consumption, as well as worries about the
security of the fossil fuel supply chain. To solve these chal-
lenges, a new trend has arisen that involves the development
of energy conversion, transportation, and storage systems
with an emphasis on renewable energy sources including
solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass [1].
Biomass is the world's sole renewable carbonaceous
resource, with a large bulk volume and high compatibility
with today's energy production and consumption systems.
Fuels, chemicals, and energies generated from biomass con-
version can be used to augment those derived from fossil
fuels. However, there is still a long way to go in terms of
closing the knowledge and technological gaps in the conver-
sion of biomass to fuels and energy. The conversion of
biomass into various products can be accomplished in a va-
riety of ways, including physical, chemical, thermochemical,
and biochemical processes [2].
Gasification is a promising method for converting biomass
into energy [3]. Gasification, as one of the most significant
thermochemical conversion methods, can successfully
convert low-grade biomass into valuable H2 and syngas, and
as a result, it is gaining in popularity these days [2]. The
gasification process is the combustion of organic/carbona-
ceous matter under oxygen-deficient conditions or under sub-
stoichiometric conditions in order to obtain useful gases and
chemicals. Gasification results in mainly gas, so with regard to
hydrogen production, it is a more favorable process than py-
rolysis. The hydrogen production percentage is enhanced
when the gases produced in the process are subjected to
steam reforming. The water gas shift reaction can further
enhance this process. The gasification process is most effec-
tive with biomass with less than 35% moisture content. There
are four processes during gasification: drying, pyrolysis,
oxidation, and reduction. Drying removes moisture from
biomass, pyrolysis heats the biomass, oxidation burns it, and
reduction converts flue gas and tar (Topping Atmosphere
Residue) into syngas [4].
Biomass gasification for H2 generation has emerged as a
possible means of realizing high-value biomass utilization [2].
In this sense, hydrogen has emerged as a promising fuel
platform as long as this compound will perform a role as
clean, environmentally friendly, and high-energy content
fuel, which is useable in fuel cells to generate electricity [5].
Hydrogen (H2) is a key source of energy in our economy, and it
piques the curiosity of scientists and policymakers all over the
non-toxic, (b) it is clean, (c) it has a high heating value (on a
mass basis), (d) it has a wide range of uses (in food, petro-
chemicals, microelectronics, polymer synthesis, and metal-
lurgical processes), and (e) it is inexpensive [6]. The use of
lignocellulosic material (such as agricultural wastes) in
hydrogen production transformation processes can save costs
while also improving environmental performance, reducing
the negative consequences of other forms of processing [7].
Many chain reactions occur throughout the gasification
process. Hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrogen make up the majority of
the resultant “product gas”. Particulates, tar, ammonia (NH3),
and sulfur are also present in the product gas [8].
Gasification, pyrolysis, hydrothermal upgrading, super-
critical water gasification, steam gasification, pyrolysis inline
reforming, and bio-oil reforming were all explored in depth by
Paney et al. [9]. Temperature, biomass species, steam-to-
biomass ratio, and bicarbonate particle size have all been
studied extensively in relation to hydrogen production.
Furthermore, it was revealed that pyrolysis, steam reforming,
and inline reforming all efficiently produce a significant
quantity of hydrogen from biomass while also improving
process efficiency. A variety of variables, including catalyst
type, higher temperatures, and suitable steam to biomass
ratios, have been found as promoting hydrogen yield [9].
In addition, Kalinci et al. [10] reviewed various methods for
converting biomass into hydrogen gas under two main cate-
gories: (a) thermochemical processes (pyrolysis, conventional
gasification, supercritical water gasification (SCWG)), and (b)
biological conversions (fermentative hydrogen production,
photosynthesis, biological water gas shift reactions (BWGS))
[10].
Several methods were reported to model gas-solid flows
pattern which exist in fluidized bed reactor of the Biomass
Gasification Process. Xue et al. [11] developed an Eulerian
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of biomass gasifi-
cation that can be used in simulations of a fluidized-bed
gasifier (FBG). It was shown that the model can predict the
trends of gas composition and yields versus different biomass
and reactor conditions. Chen et al. [12] employed a two-fluid
CFD model to simulate the gasification of biomass in a fluid-
ized bed. The study was conducted to examine particle con-
centrations, velocity, and gas components. All products
decreased with the increase in equivalence ratio (ER). H2 and
CH4 exhibited linear correlations with ER, whereas CO and
CO2 depicted third-degree polynomials. A reactive model was
developed by Wang et al. [13] using OpenFOAM package. The
effects of various operating parameters were investigated on
biomass gasification. Based on the results, biomass particles
774 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1
migrated and accumulated at the bed surface. An increase in
temperature increased the rate of endothermic reactions for
product formation. When steam/biomass increased, CO is
decreased, but H2 and CO2 are increased. Using a numerical
approach, Ostermeier et al. [14] analyzed and explored the
complex behavior of a fluidized bed biomass gasifier. It has
been found that the CFD-DEM simulation can be used to fairly
predict gasifier behavior, the evolution of biomass pellets, and
the underlying hydrodynamics, including how they are tied to
heat transfer processes. Using numerical simulation, Yang
et al. [15] explored biomass gasification in a three-dimensional
bubbling fluidized bed with a sand material with wide particle
size distribution (PSD). A wider PSD increased the perfor-
mance of gasification by biomass particles with reduced mass,
a longer residence time in the bed, and a reduction in char
residual in the biomass particles lost. According to Wang et al.
[16], a user-defined solver is developed for high-fidelity CFD-
DEM simulations integrating thermochemical sub-models
using open-source software MFIX-DEM for simulating
biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactors. It was found
that the numerical results are unaffected by the grid size or
statistical time. Compared with the non-linear Hertzian con-
tact model, the linear LSD contact model can reduce a sig-
nificant amount of calculation time. While drag models have a
significant influence on gas-solid flow dynamics, they have
only a slight effect on thermochemical results at the reactor
exit.
An integrated process for biomass gasification that uses air
to produce ultrapure hydrogen has been developed by Ji P et al.
[17]. The process was comprised of a liquid bubble boiler, an
air vaporizer, and a water-gas-shift membrane reactor.
Simulated findings were in agreement with experimental ev-
idence. The integrated process has been thermodynamically
analyzed based on the simulation results. Prӧll and Hofbauer
[18] presented a simulation tool for an equation-oriented
simulation environment that is particularly suitable for
describing gasification processes. In a short case study, the
simulation tool was demonstrated to be applicable to the
process layout of a fluidized bed steam plant based on a
typical combined heat and power cycle. A simulation of
biomass gasification in an atmospheric fluidized bed gasifier
was developed by Nikoo and Mahinpey [19] with the ASPEN
Plus simulator. The model incorporated both hydrodynamics
and reaction kinetics. Temperature was found to increase
hydrogen production and enhance carbon conversion. An in-
crease in the steam-to-biomass ratio caused an increase in the
production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide and a decrease
in carbon dioxide and carbon conversion efficiency. Through
the conjunction of Aspen Plus simulator with dedicated
FORTRAN subroutines, a detailed process model of hydrogen
and syngas production from airesteam gasification of
biomass was developed by Beheshti et al. [20] According to the
results, high temperatures were more advantageous for pro-
ducing useful syngas and hydrogen. In the steam/biomass
ratio range studied, steam injection was recognized as a key
factor in producing more hydrogen rich gas, but had a major
impact on CO2 production. Through the use of Aspen Plus,
Qiao et al. [21] reviewed kinetic and equilibrium concepts for
biomass-tar modeling. The researchers examined different tar
models, in which tar was represented as different
components, such as naphthalene, toluene and bulk tar.
Gasification and pyrolysis have been employed to convert
biomass to energy by M.S. Eikeland et al. [22]. The Aspen Plus
simulation tool can be used to simulate gasification processes.
On the basis of simulations with Gibbs reactors and Contin-
uous Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR), the effect of reaction
temperature, residence time, and steam flow velocity was
examined.
Compared to similar studies, this study presents a novel
process for generating hydrogen from biomass gasification
products that is more energy efficient and produces more
hydrogen. In contrast to previous studies, kinetic models of
tars reforming are used in this contribution, and the
reforming reactor is designed as a plug flow reactor (PFR).
The rate of the reactions follows the Arrhenius model. To
increase the energy efficiency, the process was also
enhanced with a combined heat and power cycle (CHP). By
adding a CHP, the heat produced by the tar reformer can be
converted into electricity.
Materials and methods
The mechanism of the hydrogen production from biomass
gasification tar
Fig. 1 shows a block flow diagram (BFD) of hydrogen produc-
tion through reforming of tar from biomass gasification. In
general, five operating units are needed to convert tar from
gasification process to hydrogen as follows:

Tar reforming unit

Power and steam generation unit

Removal of sulfur in the form of hydrogen sulfide (gas
purification)

Water-gas shift reactor and gas compression

Hydrogen Purification in PSA unit

Co2 absorption unit
After preparation and injection, biomass enters the gasifi-
cation unit where water and oxygen also enter the reactor as
raw materials. Many reactions taking place in the gasification
reactor, the most important of which are presented as Equa-
tions (1)e(10) [8]:
Char Combustion
Partial oxidation C þ 1=2O2 /CO (1)
Oxidation C þ O2 /CO2 (2)
Char Gasification
Boudard C þ CO2 /2CO (3)
Primary WGS C þ H2 O/CO þ H2 (4)
Secondary WGS C þ 2H2 O/CO2 þ 2H2 (5)
Methanation C þ 2H2 /CH4 (6)
Oxidation of Volatile Matter
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1 775

Fig. 1 e Block flow diagram of hydrogen production unit from reforming of biomass gasification tars.

outlet compositions. Operational conditions of the hydrogen

Partical oxidation CO þ 1=2O2 /CO2 (7) production unit are provided in Table 2.

Oxidation H2 þ 1=2O2 /H2 O (8) Synthesis of chemical reactions

Oxidation CH4 þ 2O2 /CO2 þ 2H2 O (9) As mentioned in this study, hydrogen is obtained by steam
reforming of biomass gasification products, for which an in-
tegrated process has been designed. In this process, chemical
WGS CO þ H2 O/CO2 þ H2 (10)
reforming and water-gas shift reactions occur in units 1 and 4,
The outlet stream of the gasification enters the tar which generally follow Equation (11) [23]. The corresponding
reformer. The temperature and operating pressure in this reactions are represented as Equations (12)e(18). In Equation
section are 700  C and 200 kPa, respectively. Subsequently, the (11), Eai is the activation energy of each reaction, R is the
gas produced by the reformer loses its ash in the cyclone and
enters the power and steam generation unit. In this unit,
water under the operating conditions of 12,000 kPa and tem-
perature of 46.14  C is converted into high-pressure steam Table 1 e Pre-designed operating conditions for biomass
(HPS) in a heat exchanger called heat recovery and steam gasification unit as well as gasifier outlet compositions
generation (HRSG). Power (electricity) is obtained by expand- [8].
ing HPS through a turbine. Gasification variables Value
The exhaust gas from the CHP unit is sent to the treatment Temperature ( C) 
800e900
plant, where hydrogen sulfide is separated. The refined gas Pressure (atm) 1e2
enters the water-gas shift section where the water vapor reacts Ratio of steam to biomass feed 0.6e1
with carbon monoxide according to Equation (10) and is con- Tar Components (molar percentage)
Water 8.242
verted to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The purpose of water-
Oxygen 0.0
gas shift reaction is to reduce carbon monoxide and increase Hydrogen 18.304
the concentration of hydrogen in the gasification products. As a Carbon monoxide 14.185
result of its low pressure, the water-gas shift section gas enters Carbon dioxide 15.284
the multi-stage compressor and reaches a pressure of 1200 kPa, Methane 4.21
which is the pressure required for separation in the PSA unit. Nitrogen 39.536
Hydrogen sulfide 0.04
In the compression unit, there is a cooler after each
Benzene 0.154
compression step to balance the gas temperature. The gas
Toluene 0.036
produced from the compression stage, which consists of car- Naphthalene 0.0375
bon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and amounts of water vapor, Pyrene 0.0029
enters the PSA unit for purification and produce pure P-Xylene 0.0036
hydrogen. This unit consists of solid beds that separate Indene 0.00016
hydrogen from the gaseous mixture. The purge stream, which E-Benzene 0.00007
Anthracene 0.00021
consists of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, is sent to the carbon
Acenaphthene 0.0039
dioxide capture unit using the MEA-PZ chemical solvent, so
Gas Heating Value (Wet) (kj/kg) 5777
that the hydrogen production process emits almost no carbon Gas Heating Value (Dry) (kj/kg) 6002
dioxide. Table 1 presents the pre-designed operating condi- Molar ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide 1.29
tions for the biomass gasification unit and the corresponding Biomass Heating Value in the feed (HHV) (kj/kg) 5777
776 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1

generated stream from the gasification reactor enters the

Table 2 e Operational conditions of the hydrogen
reformer reactor at a temperature of 700  C and a pressure of
production unit [8].
200 kPa with an intensity of 1000 kmol/h. In this reactor, the tar
Parameter Value
reacts with steam to produce synthetic gas and carbon. Upon

Feed temperature ( C) 700 exiting the reformer, the outlet stream enters the cyclone at
Reformer pressure (kPa) 200 880  C and a flow rate of 1101 kmol/h, and the ash is separated.
Water-gas shift reactor temperature ( C) 401.3
Gas exiting the cyclone (stream 101) enters the CHP unit at
Water-gas shift reactor pressure (kPa) 109.4
PSA section pressure (kPa) 1200
1098 kmol/h. The schematic of the simulation of the CHP unit
PSA section temperature e ( C) 25 is shown in Fig. 3. Information on the streams in this section
Steam turbine efficiency (%) 75 and other process streams is provided in Table 4. Purposes in
Steam turbine outlet pressure (kPa) 1000 CHP unit are: Firstly, to produce high-pressure steam, sec-
Steam turbine inlet pressure (kPa) 12,000 ondly, to send this steam to the steam turbine, and finally to
produce 1.059 MW of power. As shown in Fig. 3, the CHP cycle
is designed in such a way that the reformer gases at the exit of
universal gas constant, A is the pre-exponential factor and T is
this cycle reach a temperature of 50  C, which is an ideal
the temperature. Table 3 presents the kinetic parameters for
temperature for the separation of H2S by the amine cycle.
the reactions occurring in the reformer and the water-gas shift
Furthermore, part of the heat output of the steam turbine
reactors.
(stream 103) as recovered by the support heater is used to
  preheat the water-gas shift reactor. After leaving the HRSG
Eai  a
ri ¼ Ai exp Cx Hy ½H2 b ½O2 g ½H2 Od ½CO2 ε Ta (11) heat exchanger, the reformer gas stream enters the sulfur
R:T
removal unit. The separation of hydrogen sulfide is required
CH4 þ H2 O/CO þ 3H2 (12) because the presence of this toxic gas causes catalyst
poisoning. The fresh gas stream from the hydrogen sulfide
removal unit (stream 106) enters the water-gas shift and gas
C6 H6 þ 2H2 O/1:5C þ 2:5CH4 þ 2CO (13)
compression section, the schematic of which is shown in
Fig. 4. During this process, steam is mixed with gas stream at a
C7 H8 þ 2H2 O/2C þ 3CH4 þ 2CO (14)
ratio of 1.77 (Steam/CO ¼ 1.77). The mixed stream (stream 107)
is heated to 235  C through an integration heater (Stream 108)
C16 H10 þ 2H2 O/2C0 þ 0:3CH4 þ 12:1C þ 0:1C6 H6 þ 5:7H2
and then enters the water-gas shift reactor.
þ 0:1C10 H8 (15) By means of a separator with the cooling coil, part of the
moisture in the gas stream is removed. Upon exiting the sepa-
C8 H10 þ 2H2 O/2CO þ 0:556C6 H6 þ 2:667CH4 (16) rator (stream 117), the outlet gas passes through the multistage
compressor with a pressure of 1200 kPa, and then enters the
C14 H10 þ 2H2 O/2CO þ 0:1C6 H6 þ 0:4CH4 þ 3:7H2 þ 0:55C10 H8 intermediate coolers, where it is cooled down to 25  C. As the
þ 5:5C fluid leaves the coolers, it enters the separator as a two-phase
(17) stream and some of the accompanying water is removed. PSA
unit receives the outlet gases of the separator. In PSA unit,
CO þ H2 O/CO2 þ H2 (18) hydrogen is separated from other gases by packed beds.
Based on the simulation results, hydrogen with an intensity
of 517.8 kmol/h is produced at a temperature of 25  C and a
Results and discussion pressure of 1200 kPa. Purge gas flow, which has a high content
of carbon dioxide, is the feed of the carbon capture unit. In this
Process simulation unit (Fig. 5) MDEA-PZ solvent is used (10 wt% methyl dieth-
anolamine and 30 wt% Piperazine) [27]. The gas stream enters
Fig. 2 illustrates the general schematic of the simulation of the absorption tower from bottom and the solvent is poured on
hydrogen production units from biomass gasification tar. The the gas with a flow rate of 4250 kmol/h. In this study, the

Table 3 e Kinetic parameters of important reactions in the process of hydrogen production from reforming of biomass
gasification tar.
ri Ai a b g d ε a Ref
kj
Eai ¼
kmol

r12 3  108 1:25  105 1 0 0 1 0 0 [24]

r13 2  1016 4:43  105 1.3 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 [17]
r14 3:3  1010 2:47  105 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 [25]
r15 1:7  1014 3:5  105 1.6 0.5 0 0 0 0 [25]
r16 3:3  1010 2:47  105 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 [26]
r17 1:7  1014 3:5  105 1.6 0.5 0 0 0 0 [26]
r18 2:8  103 12; 600 1 1 0 1 1 0 [24]
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1 777

Fig. 2 e General schematic of simulation of hydrogen production units from reforming of biomass gasification tar.

Fig. 3 e Schematic of simulation of steam and power generation cycle.

Table 4 e Characteristics of process streams for hydrogen production from reforming of biomass gasification tar.
Stream Temperature ( C) Pressure (kPa) Mass flow (kg/h) Stream Temperature ( C) Pressure (kPa) Mass flow (kg/h)
100 880 200 24,520 110 25.01 198 6154
101 880 198 24,480 Hydrogen 25 1200 1044
102 50 198 24,480 Purge Gas 29 1200 26,360
BFW 46.14 12,000 11,710 H2S 50 180 59.89
HPS 329.4 12,000 11,710 water 25 101.3 6154
103 179.9 1000 11,710 116 112.4 1000 11,710
125 93.37 109.4 30,570 104 45 1000 11,710
117 35 109.4 28,600 106 50 198 24,420
118 374.3 1200 28,600 107 719 109.4 6154
170 25 1200 28,600 108 235 109.4 30,570
CO2 45 500 15,340 Lean Amine 44.1 1200 123,400
To ATM 44 1200 11,120 Rich Amine 115 1200 140,500
Lean 153 500 123,400 waste 45 500 1699
123 401 109.4 30,570 104 45 1000 11,710

absorber tower had 20 trays, its diameter was 1.269 m and the
distance between each sieve tray was 0.696 m. For the ab-
sorption tower, 16 of the 20 trays were for absorbing CO2 and
four for washing gas with water leading to the absorption of
92.74% of CO2 gas. The composition of important process
streams while using Tray column in CO2 absorption unit is
demonstrated in Table 5. Then, once again, the absorption
tower was considered as a packed bed, which had a diameter
of 1.269 and a height of 14 m, and its packing type was selected
as MELLAPACK. The composition of important process streams
of CO2 absorption unit (packed column) is shown in Table 6. It
was observed that in the packing tower, CO2 was completely
absorbed. The use of water helps to prevent solvent losses. The
rich solvent stream exits the bottom of the absorption tower
and after passing through the L/R HEX heat exchanger with a
temperature of 120  C and a pressure of 500 kPa, enters the
stripper tower (T-100) from above [27]. Carbon dioxide is
retrieved from the top of the stripper and the recovered solvent
exits from the stripper reboiler at the temperature of 153  C
and after passing through the L/R HEX, it's cooled to 147.8  C.
The solvent flow reaches 44  C through a cooler. Finally, the
reduced solvent is pumped by the P-600 pump to a pressure of
1200 kPa and enters the absorption column from tray 5. Table 7
shows the concentration of important process streams and
Table 8 presents the specifications of the process equipment
based on the simulation results.
778 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1

Fig. 4 e Schematic of water-gas shift and gas compression simulation.

Fig. 5 e Schematic simulation of the chemical absorption of carbon dioxide.

Table 5 e Composition of important process streams for Table 7 e Composition of important process streams for
CO2 absorption unit (Tray Column). hydrogen production from reforming of biomass
Concentration (mol%) gasification tar.
Process Streams
Components Lean Amine Rich Amine To ATM CO2
Components 100 106 To PSA Unit
H2O 0.8844 0.8303 0.0082 0.0201
Mole Fraction
CO2 0.0011 0.0645 0.0 0.9791
Water 0.0283 0.0284 0.0030
N2 0.0 0.0 0.9918 0.0008
Hydrogen 0.2949 0.2961 0.4101
MDEA 0.0222 0.0204 0.0 0.0
Carbon monoxide 0.1753 0.1760 0.0000
PZ 0.0922 0.0846 0.0 0.0
Carbon dioxide 0.1387 0.1393 0.2739
Nitrogen 0.3589 0.3603 0.3130
Hydrogen sulfide 0.0004 0.0 0.0
Naphthalene 0.0003 0.0 0.0
Table 6 e Composition of important process streams for
Carbon 0.0031 0.0 0.0
CO2 absorption unit (Packed Column).
Process Streams
Lean Amine Rich Amine To ATM CO2 Components Hydrogen Purge Gas 108
Components Mole Fraction Mole Fraction
Water 0.0 0.0050 0.2591
H2O 0.8594 0.7991 0.0082 0.0201
Hydrogen 1.0000 0.0 0.2258
CO2 0.0004 0.0740 0.0 0.9792
Carbon monoxide 0.0 0.0000 0.1342
N2 0.0 0.0 0.9918 0.0008
Carbon dioxide 0.0 0.4643 0.1062
MDEA 0.0445 0.0403 0.0 0.0
Methane 0.0 0.0 0.0000
PZ 0.0957 0.0866 0.0 0.0
Nitrogen 0.0 0.5307 0.2747

Sensitivity analysis increases, the reboiler's energy consumption increases. The

boiling point of the solvent entering the reboiler increases
Fig. 6 shows the effect of the concentration of Piperazine when the concentration of Piperazine increases. At a constant
activator on the energy consumption of the stripper reboiler. pressure of the reboiler (500 kPa), this results in an increase in
This figure shows that as the concentration of Piperazine energy consumption.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1 779

Table 8 e Specifications of process equipment for hydrogen production from reforming of biomass gasification Tar.
Pumps
Adiabatic efficiency (%) Power (MW) DP (kPa) P ratio
Pump 75 0.04807 11,000 12
p-100 75 0.00021 96.70 1.955
p-600 75 0.0336 750 2.667

Turbine

Adiabatic efficiency (%) Power (MW) DP (kPa) P ratio

Steam Turbine 75 1.059 11,000 0.083

Heat Exchangers

Min. approach ( C) LMTD ( C) Duty (MW) Cold Pinch Temp ( C)

HRSG 3.864 105.2 8.502 46.14
L/R HEX 32.553 32.73 0.7026 115

Heater/Cooler

Inlet Temp ( C) Outlet Temp ( C) Heat Duty (MW) Outlet Press (kPa)
Heater Support 179.9 112.4 6.599 1000
Condenser 112.4 45 0.8927 1000
Heater 36.47 235 6.599 109.4
Gas Cooler 401.3 93.37 4.175 109.4
Intermediate Coolers 374.3 25 5.126 1200
Cooler 147.8 44 13.030 450

Reactors

Inlet Temp ( C) Outlet Temp ( C) Inlet Press (kPa) Outlet Press (kPa)
Reformer 700 880 200 200
WGS Reactor 235 401.3 109.4 109.4

Fig. 6 e The effect of Piperazine concentration on the Fig. 7 e Effect of stripper feed temp on energy consumption
energy consumption of the stripper reboiler. of reboiler, cooler, and heat transfer in L/R HEX.

Fig. 7 illustrates that when the inlet stream temperature to
the stripper is raised, the reboiler energy consumption de-
creases, the heat transfer rate in the L/R heat exchanger in-
creases, and the energy consumption for solvent cooling in
the cooler heat exchanger decreases. Accordingly, as the
temperature of the inlet stream increases, more heat enters
the stripper, so the reboiler use less energy to remove carbon
dioxide. Higher heat transfer rates in the L/R heat exchanger
cause the higher temperature at the inlet of the stripper.
Therefore, the heat transfer rate trend in this heat exchanger
will be ascending with increasing the inlet stream tempera-
ture. In order to increase the temperature of the inlet stream,
the heat exchanger should have an adequate surface area. On
the other hand, a decrease in energy consumption of the
cooler is related to the heat transfer rate of the L/R heat
exchanger. In the L/R heat exchanger, the higher heat transfer
rates leads to elevating the inlet temperature to the stripper,
while lowering the inlet temperature to the cooler. Based on
the relationship (Q ¼ m  Cp  DT), the smaller the temper-
ature difference between the inlet and outlet of a cooler, the
lower its energy consumption will be.
Water is the working fluid for heat transfer in the CHP
cycle. Fig. 8 shows how water molar flow rate affects power
generation. The figure demonstrates a downward trend in
power generation from the turbine with increasing water flow
rate. CHP cycles which consisting of greater amounts of water
flow rate, result in lower temperature differences and conse-
quently lower enthalpy differences between the inlet and
outlet of turbine. According to the energy balance around the
steam turbine ðW _ Turbine ¼ mðh
_ in  hout ÞÞ, the turbine power is
780 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1

Table 9 e Comparison of the results of this research with

base case [8].
Parameter Unit Current Ersoz A et al.
Study (2018) [8]
kmolH2
Intensity of hydrogen 0.518 0.475
kmolTar
production
kgCO2
Intensity of CO2 emission 0.0 0.631
kgH2
(Footprint)
Carbon monoxide % 100 80.68
conversion rate
Making electricity MW 1.059 No
Vapor to CO ratio in WGS e 1.77 1.77
Fig. 8 e Effect of working fluid molar flow rate on the power
reactor
generation. kg
High pressure steam 11,710 No
h
production
Energy efficiency % 63 29.59
directly proportional to the enthalpy difference of the working
Reforming reactor model e R-Plug R-Gibbs
fluid. Thus, increasing the water flow rate leads to decreases
Gas-water conversion e R-Plug R-Equilibrium
in the power generated by the turbine. reactor model
The Fig. 9 shows that, increasing the steam flow rate in the
WGS reactor increases the flow rate of products (hydrogen and
carbon dioxide) and decreases carbon monoxide emissions. [8] to 63%. The high temperature of the tars reformer in the
However, there is little change in flow rate of gases when the CHP cycle is used to generate electricity and steam, which
water flow rate is above 200 kmol/h, which is likely due to the leads to total heat recovery of 6.599 MW, the production of
depletion of carbon monoxide during the reaction. According 1.059 MW of power from the steam turbine.
to the figure, when the water flow to the reactor is equal or Considering that based on the results obtained from the
greater than 200 kmol/h, all the carbon monoxide is converted simulation with the Plug reactor model, the conversion rate of
into a product, indicating a 100% conversion rate for this carbon monoxide in the WGS reactor is 100% (in the ratio of
material. Essentially, the amount of steam entering the water vapor to carbon monoxide), so the intensity of hydrogen
reactor is adjusted to ensure that all of the carbon monoxide is production in the present work increased compared to the
converted when it reacts with the steam. Indeed, Carbon work is done [8]. According to the comparison, the intensity of
monoxide is intended to be completely converted in the WGS hydrogen production in the present work is 9.052% higher
reaction so that maximum concentrations of hydrogen are than the base case [8]. However, it should be noted that the
obtained at the reactor's output. increase in the conversion rate of carbon monoxide in the plug
reactor has caused the process to be carbon neutral.
The comparison of the results Technically, the use of thermal integration and assembly of
CHP cycle to the process of hydrogen production from bitumen
The results of the present work have been compared with a reforming resulting from biomass gasification has a great
study conducted by Ersoz et al. [8] as presented in Table 9. impact on the process modification. As the results of this study
Structurally, in the present work, the process of reforming the show, when thermal integration and CHP cycle are used, the
tars obtained from biomass gasification has been upgraded in process of hydrogen production from tars is associated with
an integrative manner leading to an improved energy effi- much higher energy efficiency, in other words, energy losses
ciency due to the use of heat sources as efficiently as possible. will be much lower, this research is evidence of this fact.
Two important steps in the present work have increased the
energy efficiency of tar reforming from 29.59 of that reported
Conclusion

In this study, a method for producing hydrogen from ligno-

Fig. 9 e Effect of inlet steam flow rate to WGS reactor on the
products and carbon monoxide flow rates.
cellulosic biomass is presented and the related energy po-
tential was discussed. Solid sources of biomass, which are the
vast majority of lignocelluloses, can be converted to gaseous
fuels through thermochemical gasification processes. A gasi-
fication process involves the stages of drying, devolatilization,
or pyrolysis and gasification in a reactor. Many chain reactions
occur during the gasification phase. The resulting gas product
mainly contains hydrogen carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrogen. The gaseous product also contains
particles such as tar (toluene, benzene, anthracene, xylene,
pyrine, naphthalene, and etc.), ammonia, and sulfur com-
pounds in small quantities depending on the operating con-
ditions. The tars in biomass gasification products must be
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 2 2 ) 7 7 2 e7 8 1
removed in order to obtain a quality product from hydrogen or
synthetic gas. One of the ways to remove these tars is to re-
form them using steam at a temperature between 700 and
900 Celsius. In this research, a process for removing these
tars and converting them to hydrogen is presented, which has
a higher hydrogen production intensity and higher cold gas
efficiency compared to previous works.
In the proposed process, an attempt has been made to
provide a full integration structure so that all the heat sources
in the process are used to reduce utility consumption. The
results showed that the addition of power and steam gener-
ation cycle can increase the overall energy efficiency of the
process to 63%, while the conventional process has an energy
efficiency of 29.59%. This study demonstrated that the optimal
use of energy resources in the process of tar reforming leads to
reasonable cold gas efficiency for this process and reduce the
negative attitudes towards this process.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
references
[1] Herdem Münür Sacit, et al. Simulation and modeling of a
combined biomass gasification-solar photovoltaic hydrogen
production system for methanol synthesis via carbon
dioxide hydrogenation. Energy Convers Manag
2020;219:113045.
[2] Li Bin, et al. Simulation of sorption enhanced staged
gasification of biomass for hydrogen production in the
presence of calcium oxide. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45(51):26855e64.
[3] de Caprariis B, et al. Biomass gasification and tar reforming
in a two-stage reactor. Energy Procedia 2014;61:1071e4.
[4] Couto N, Rouboa A, Silva V, Monteiro E, Bouziane KH.
Influence of the biomass gasification processes on the final
composition of syngas. Energy Procedia 2013;36:596e606.
[5] Meramo-Hurtado Samir I, Puello Plinio, Cabarcas Amaury.
Process analysis of hydrogen production via biomass
gasification under computer-aided safety and environmental
assessments. ACS Omega 2020;5(31):19667e81.
[6] Zhang Yaning, et al. Hydrogen production through biomass
gasification in supercritical water: a review from exergy
aspect. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(30):15727e36.
[7] Meramo-Hurtado S, Ojeda-Delgado K, Sanchez-Tuiran E.
Exergy analysis of bioethanol production from rice residues.
Contemp Eng Sci 2018;11:467e74.
[8] Erso€ z Ayrin, et al. Investigation of a novel & integrated
simulation model for hydrogen production from
lignocellulosic biomass. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43(2):1081e93.
[9] Pandey Bhoopendra, Prajapati Yogesh K, Sheth Pratik N.
Recent progress in thermochemical techniques to produce
781
hydrogen gas from biomass: a state of the art review. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(47):25384e415.
[10] Kalinci Y, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Biomass-based hydrogen
production: a review and analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34(21):8799e8817.3.
[11] Xue Q, Fox RO. Multi-fluid CFD modeling of biomass
gasification in polydisperse fluidized-bed gasifiers. Powder
Technol 2014;254:187e98.
[12] Chen J, Yin W, Wang S, et al. Analysis of biomass gasification
in bubbling fluidized bed with two-fluid model. J Renew
Sustain Energy 2016;8(6):063105.
[13] Wang S, Luo K, Hu C, et al. Impact of operating parameters
on biomass gasification in a fluidized bed reactor: an
Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. Powder Technol
2018;333:304e16.
[14] Ostermeier P, Fischer F, Fendt S, et al. Coarse-grained CFD-
DEM simulation of biomass gasification in a fluidized bed
reactor. Fuel 2019;255:115790.
[15] Yang S, Zhou T, Wei Y, et al. Influence of size-induced
segregation on the biomass gasification in bubbling fluidized
bed with continuous lognormal particle size distribution.
Energy Convers Manag 2019;198:111848.
[16] Wang S, Luo K, Fan J. CFD-DEM coupled with
thermochemical sub-models for biomass gasification:
validation and sensitivity analysis. J Chem Eng Sci
2020;217:115550.
[17] Ji P, Feng W, Chen B. Production of ultrapure hydrogen from
biomass gasification with air. Chem Eng Sci
2009;64(3):582e92.
[18] Prӧll T, Hofbauer H. Development and application of a
simulation tool for biomass gasification based processes. Int
J Chem React Eng 2008;6:1.
[19] Nikoo MB, Mahinpey N. Simulation of biomass gasification in
fluidized bed reactor using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;32:1245e54.
[20] Beheshti SM, Ghassemi H, Shahsavan-Markadeh R. Process
simulation of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed
reactor. Energy Convers Manage 2015;94:345e52.
[21] Qiao C, Xiao Y, Xu X, Zhao L, Tian W. Comparative analysis of
hydrogen production systems from biomass based on
different absorbent regeneration processes. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2007;32:80e5.
[22] Eikeland MS, Thapa RK, Halvorsen B. Aspen plus simulation
of biomass gasification with known reaction kinetic. 2015.
[23] Gonzalez Aldemar Martinez, et al. Hydrogen production from
oil sludge gasification/biomass mixtures and potential use in
hydrotreatment processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43(16):7808e22.
[24] Leckner B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36:444e509. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.002.
[25] Jess A. Mechanisms and kinetics of thermal reactions of
aromatic hydrocarbons from pyrolysis of solid fuels. Fuel
1996;75:1441e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(96)00136-6.
[26] Sreejith CC, Muraleedharan C, Arun P. Air-steam gasification
of biomass in fluidized bed with CO2 absorption: a kinetic
model for performance prediction. Fuel Process Technol
2015;130:197e207. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuproc.2014.09.040.
[27] Chauvy Remi, Dubois Lionel, Lybaert Paul, Thomas Diane, De
Weireld Guy. Production of synthetic natural gas from
industrial carbon dioxide. Appl Energy 2020;260:114249.