Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A conceptual hydrogen, heat and power polygeneration system based on

biomass gasification, SOFC and waste heat recovery units: Energy, exergy,
economic and emergy (4E) assessment
Ibrahim Tera a, Shengan Zhang a, Guilian Liu a, b, *
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, Shaanxi, China
b
Engineering Research Center of New Energy System Engineering and Equipment, University of Shaanxi Province, Xi’an, 710049, Shaanxi, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: A. Olabi Integrated polygeneration systems have emerged as an effective and sustainable solution for maximizing the
utilization of renewable fuels, and offer multiple economic and environmental advantages. This work proposes a
Keywords: new polygeneration system to produce hydrogen, heat, and power based on integrating biomass gasification,
Biomass gasification solid oxide fuel cell, gas turbine, organic Rankine cycle, and supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. The proposed
Polygeneration
system is simulated in Aspen Plus, and the performance is evaluated based on energy, exergy, economic, and
Emergy
emergy analyses. The overall energy and exergy efficiencies attain 76.82% and 60.64%, respectively. The lev­
Sensitivity analysis
Sustainability elized cost of hydrogen is 4.06 $/kg, comparable to those reported in the literature, and the yearly income
generated through revenue sales of hydrogen, heat, and electricity can reach up to 58.42 M$. The emergy
analysis showed that the system depends on purchased inputs but can efficiently use the available resources to
generate valuable products. The hybrid system has low environmental impacts in the long term. It can serve as a
low-cost, low-carbon, and profitable polygeneration system of hydrogen, heat, and power, with a good quality of
energy conversion.

1. Introduction to mitigating the greenhouse effect [6]. Biomass is generally converted

The continuous growth of the population and steady progress in
industrialization have hastened fossil fuel consumption, causing signif­
icant environmental concerns [1]. According to the International Energy
Association (IEA), half of the world’s proven crude oil reserves will be
exhausted by 2040 if fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the current
rate [2]. Moreover, pollution problems arising from using fossil fuels to
generate electricity are causing significant environmental damage,
forcing governments worldwide to adopt new energy and climate pol­
icies aiming to decarbonize the power sector. Recently, hydrogen has
gained more attention because it is seen as a zero-emission alternative to
fossil fuels [3]. Today, hydrogen only contributes to 1% of global energy
consumption. However, this value is expected to increase to 13% by
2050 [4]. Currently, a significant amount of ongoing research is dedi­
cated to sustainable production of hydrogen [5].
Bioenergy, derived from biomass, a plentiful and easily accessible
resource on earth, represents an important renewable energy source
with the potential to lower carbon dioxide emissions, thus contributing
into value-added energy products such as bioenergy through biochem­
ical or thermochemical processes. In recent years, despite the develop­
ment of new advanced technologies such as hydrolysis [7], direct
catalytic conversion [8], and liquefaction [9], biomass can be utilized at
the plant scale only through direct combustion [10], pyrolysis [11],
fermentation [12], and gasification [13], with energy as the main
product. Between these methods, biomass gasification is the most
effective approach for generating power and heat and produces fewer
pollutants [14]. In addition, the gasification process generates a greater
volume of gases than pyrolysis [15]. Biomass gasification generates
syngas composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and trace amounts of
low molecular hydrocarbons, using gasifying agents like air, oxygen,
and steam. Also, biomass gasification is considered the most effective
method to generate hydrogen fuel from biomass, so this technique is
more appropriate for using biomass energy in a multigeneration system.
Coupling biomass gasification with power generation technologies,
including fuel cells and internal combustion engines, which use
hydrogen as fuel, represents an innovative, efficient, and clean approach

* Corresponding author. School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, Shaanxi, China.
E-mail address: guilianliui@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (G. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131015
Received 4 July 2023; Received in revised form 21 January 2024; Accepted 13 March 2024
Available online 14 March 2024
0360-5442/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Tera et al.
to producing hydrogen, heat, and electricity [16].
Multigeneration (polygeneration) is a possible sustainable approach
to improve the efficiency of biomass conversion systems since they are
integrated with high-efficiency power generation units or subsystems
such as fuel cells [14]. These types of systems are attracting more and
more attention owing to their high performance in energy conversion.
Multigeneration systems combining gas turbine (GT) and solid oxide
fuel cell (SOFC) technologies are a particularly compelling solution for
small-scale applications. SOFCs are considered the most promising fuel
cell devices for potential hybridization because their high-temperature
exhaust gases and configurations enable the integration with power
cycles, including steam or organic Rankine cycles (SRCs or ORCs)
and/or Brayton cycles [16], or cooling cycles such as absorption
refrigeration cycles (ARCs) and/or ejector refrigeration cycles (ERCs)
[17], to achieve efficiencies higher than 70%.
Integrating biomass gasification with SOFC in hybrid power plants
has become increasingly popular because of its benefits, and many
studies have been conducted in this direction. A small-scale combined
heat, hydrogen, and power (CHHP) system was developed by Perna et al.
[18] using ammonia as the primary energy source. The plant includes
three sections: one for power production, one for hydrogen separation,
and one for hydrogen compression and storage. The SOFC module serves
as the significant element of the CHHP plant and co-generated electrical
and hydrogen energy while running at low fuel utilization. The effi­
ciency in the cogeneration of heat, hydrogen, and electricity could reach
70%. De Lorenzo and Fragiacomo [19] developed an SOFC system fed by
syngas generated from the gasification of woody biomass for power and
heat production. The energy analysis showed that the hybrid system
could achieve a maximum energy conversion efficiency of 88.9%. Zhang
et al. [20] used the gPROMS software to investigate a combined power
system comprising a SOFC-GT hybrid system and a bottoming super­
critical ORC system fed by syngas. The maximum cogeneration effi­
ciency and maximum electricity efficiency can reach 88.43% and
66.27%, respectively.
In order to reduce energy waste, Jin et al. [21] developed a poly­
generation system based on supercritical water gasification of biomass
powered by concentrated solar energy to produce H2, heat, and elec­
tricity. The system’s energy and exergy efficiencies could reach 74.84%
and 34.87% at 700 ◦ C and 600 ◦ C, respectively, and the maximum H2
molar fraction attained 65.6 vol% at 750 ◦ C. Pipicelli et al. [22] applied
a predictive model control technique based on two variables approach to
a polygeneration system consisting of a CHP plant assisted by a battery
energy storage system (BESS) and revealed an improvement in system
performance and an overall capacity of around 3% using limited battery
aging. An integrated multigeneration system fueled by biomass and
geothermal energy sources was presented and investigated by Xing and
Li [23]. Its energy and exergy efficiencies were 79.47% and 17.87%,
respectively. A hybrid technology consisting of SOFC and supercritical
CO2 Brayton cycle was designed by Schöffer et al. [24], and performed
better than a SOFC coupled directly to a gas turbine. Prestipino et al.
[25] analyzed a polygeneration process generating hydrogen, heat, and
power from citrus peel gasification. They showed that the maximum
hydrogen output is 40.1 kgH2 per mass of dry biomass, and the exergy
efficiency is 33%. Peng et al. [26] integrated a double-effect ARC into
the SOFC–CCHP system and achieved a maximum efficiency of 73.99%.
Tan et al. [27] examined a novel hybrid power generation configuration
combining biomass gasification, SOFC, gas expanders, and the Kalina
cycle and approached an energy efficiency of 64.2%.
Emergy analysis provides a more comprehensive analysis of the
relationship between natural ecosystems and human economic systems
than energy analysis. Peng et al. [28] assessed the different operation
modes of an eco-industrial park and demonstrated that establishing
numerous small CHP units is not sustainable compared to a few large
electricity systems. Khani et al. [29] examined the viability of a
solar-energy-powered polygeneration system combining ORC,
humidification-dehumidification desalination, and CO2 capture and
2
Energy 295 (2024) 131015
indicated that ORC power generation increases from 37.30% to 59.41%,
and the overall emergy rates rise by 2.12% as a result of integrating solar
energy. Lin et al. [30] carried out an emergy assessment of a clean tri­
generation system that used biomass and natural gas cofiring and
demonstrated that the studied system could simultaneously provide
power, cooling, and freshwater while lowering carbon emissions.
Deymi-Dashtebayaz et al. [31] evaluated the emergy comprehensive
indicators based on different scenarios for a CCHP system. They revealed
that emergy indices can be used to find the more sustainable scenarios.
It can be inferred from the open literature review that, although
there is growing interest in developing systems with high sustainability,
studies focusing on biomass-based polygeneration systems for the co-
production of hydrogen, heat, and power are very limited, and the
majority of them concentrated on the energy, exergy, and economic
aspects of the systems. To the best of our knowledge, a few research
covered the application of emergy analysis to polygeneration systems
but not in the context of co-generating hydrogen, heat, and power.
Rice is a staple food in many countries in the world. Its production
increment, which is to meet the rising demand, results in an increase in
rice straw production [32]. According to the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), about 800–1000 million tons of rice straw is produced
per year. It is essential to make good use of this resource.
This paper aims to make a new contribution to the effective use of
biomass. A novel BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP trigeneration hybrid system with
rice straw as the feedstock will be proposed for producing hydrogen,
heat, and power. The system combines biomass gasification, SOFC, GT,
ORC, and supercritical CO2-Brayton cycle subsystems. Energy, Exergy,
Economic, and Emergy (4E) analyses will be applied to assess its per­
formance. The renewability, sustainability, environmental effects, and
economic factors of the proposed integrated system will be investigated
using the emergy assessment method.
2. Process description
The multigeneration approach offers various benefits, including
better energy security, reduced negative environmental impacts, mini­
mized losses, and improved efficiencies. The schematic diagram of the
proposed BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP hybrid system is shown in Fig. 1. The
system consists of five subsystems, i.e., biomass gasification, reformer,
SOFC, ORC, and S–CO2 Brayton cycle. A more detailed description of the
system can be given as follows.
The schematic layout of the biomass gasification subsystem is dis­
played in Fig. 2. The rice straw is decomposed into different components
inside the decomposition reactor. The ash is separated, and the
remaining components are sent to the gasifier. Air is introduced into the
gasifier as a gasification agent after being heated by the heat exchanger
BHX. The gasification takes place in the gasifier, and the produced gas
mixture is separated into syngas stream (CH4, CO2, H2O, H2, and CO)
and impurities composed of NH3, char, N2, H2S, and HCl. The syngas
stream from the biomass gasification subsystem is sent to separator SEP-
1 to separate hydrogen, and the remaining gas mixture enters the
reformer to generate more hydrogen through the methane steam
reforming (MSR) and water gas-shift (WGS) reactions. The high-
temperature gas mixture from the reformer is split into two parts. One
is used to run the SOFC, where the electrochemical reaction occurs to
produce electric power. The other is used to preheat the biomass feed­
stock and run the organic Rankine cycle to generate electric power
before being flashed in the Flash. The liquid water from the Flash is
recycled back to the reformer while the gas mixture (stream 32) is fed
into the second separator designated SEP-2 to separate hydrogen, and
the remaining gas mixture is sent to the combustion chamber. The en­
ergy of the flue gas with high temperature and pressure is recovered by
driving the gas turbine to produce electricity. The hot gas leaving the gas
turbine is applied to preheat the air and the syngas sent to the
combustor, the SOFC, and the reformer, respectively. The hydrogen
leaving the first separator drives the supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP hybrid system.

Gasifier Decompositon
DECOMP B4
reactor
B-SEP
Ash-SEP
B2 B5 B7
B1 GAS-N Solid separator

Gasifier
BST-OUT B6
B3 B8
INPUR
Ash Gas separator
BHX

BST-IN Air Heat exchanger

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the biomass gasification subsystem.

(SCBC) to produce electric power, improving the system’s overall energy Plus V12.1. The simulation and analysis were performed considering the
efficiency. In Fig. 1, the ORC and SCBC with simpler structures are following assumptions [34].
employed because of their simple design. The simplicity of the structures
results in lower levelized cost as compared to the advanced structures. ⁃ The system is operated at a steady state and in thermodynamic
The data of proximate and ultimate analyses of the utilized rice straw equilibrium;
are presented in Table 1. ⁃The molar composition of air is 21% O2 and 79% N2;
⁃All sulfur (S) and Chlorine (Cl) elements are converted into H2S and
3. Process modelling HCl, respectively;
⁃Impurities include char, N2, H2S, HCl, and NH3;
The process described in the previous section is a multigeneration ⁃Char is 100% carbon, and tar formation is not considered;
system of hydrogen, heat, and power and was simulated using Aspen ⁃All the gases in the model comply with Peng-Robinson equation of
state;
⁃Changes in potential energy and kinetic energy are negligible.
Table 1
The data of proximate and ultimate analyses of the rice straw [33].
Proximate analysis (wt.% dry fuel) Ultimate analysis (wt.% dry fuel)
3.1. Biomass gasification subsystem
Fixed carbon 15.86 C 38.24
Volatile matter 65.47 H 5.20
In the flowchart of the biomass gasification subsystem illustrated in
Ash 18.67 O 36.26
N 0.87 Fig. 2, the biomass gasification subsystem includes a decomposition
S 0.18 reactor, gasifier, heat exchanger, and two separators. The gasifier was
Cl 0.58 simulated using the stoichiometric reactor (RStoic) and Gibbs reactor
Ash 18.67 (RGibbs). The decomposition reactor, which decomposes the biomass at
HHV (MJ/kg) 15.09
high temperatures, was modeled using the RYield module. As depicted

3
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

in Eq. (1), all biomass components, except ash, decompose into Where Vact, Vcon, and Vohm represent the activation, concentration, and
elementary constituents in the reactor. The Aspen Plus module HeatX ohmic polarization potentials and are calculated by equations summa­
was employed to simulate the heat exchanger BHX, which preheats the rized in Table A2 in the appendix. pk refers to the partial pressure of
air inlet into the gasifier. species k, with k = H2O, H2, or O2, and F denotes the Faraday constant
x y z m (F = 96485 C/mol). TSOFC is the operating temperature of the SOFC, and
CHx Oy Nz Sn Clm → C + H2 + O2 + N2 + nS + Cl2 (1)
2 2 2 2 R represents the ideal gas constant (R = 8.3145 J/(mol⋅K)).
The relationship between the hydrogen consumption (ṅH2 ) and the
where CHxOyNzSnClm refers to the chemical formula of the rice straw. current produced in the SOFC (I) is shown in Eq. (9) [40]. The power
output of the SOFC (ẆSOFC ) can be identified by Eq. (10), and the
3.2. Model of the reformer
electrical efficiency (ηel,SOFC ) is calculated by Eq. (11) [40].
The reformer was simulated using the RGibbs module, which com­ I = 2ṅH2 ⋅F (9)
putes the chemical equilibrium conditions of the reaction based on
minimizing the Gibbs free energy without requiring a specified Ẇ SOFC = I × VSOFC (10)
stoichiometry.
MSR and WGS reactions taking place in the reformer are expressed in Ẇ SOFC
ηel,SOFC = (11)
Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), respectively [35]. ṁH2 ,in ⋅LHVH2
CH4 + H2 O → CO + 3H2 (2)
where, ṁH2 ,in represents the mass flowrate (kg/s) of hydrogen fuel and
CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 (3) LHVH2 is the lower heating value (kJ/kg) of hydrogen.

3.3. Model of the solid oxide fuel cell 3.4. Organic Rankine cycle

The SOFC is used for converting chemical energy into electricity The ORC mainly consists of four components, the evaporator,
[35]. The electrochemical reactions that occur at the anode and cathode condenser, expander, and pump. In this study, R245fa is used as the
sides can be written as follows [36]: working fluid for ORC. The isentropic model is utilized for both the ORC
pump and the expander. The expander’s output power is calculated by
Anode : H2 + O2− → H2 O + 2e− (4) Eq. (12). The pump’s power consumption is given by Eq. (13) [41].
(
1 Ẇ exp = ṁw ⋅ ho2 − ho3 ) ⋅ ηme (12)
Cathode : O2 + 2e− →O2− (5)
2
Ẇ pump = ṁw ⋅(ho1 − ho4 ) (13)
The overall reaction can be expressed in Eq. (6).
1 where ṁw is the mass flow rate (kg/s) of the working fluid, hi denotes the
H2 + O2 →H2 O (6)
2 mass enthalpy (kJ/kg) of stream i, ηme represents the mechanical effi­
Only the electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen is considered in this ciency, assumed as 0.99, Ẇexp indicates the power generated by the
study, and that of CO is neglected because its reaction is extremely slow, expander (kW) and Ẇpump is the pump’s power consumption (kW).
and 98% of the current is generated by hydrogen oxidation [37]. The The condenser and evaporator’s duties (Q̇cond and Q̇Evap ) can be
SOFC unit was simulated in Aspen Plus software by a user-defined model expressed by Eq. (14) and Eq. (15), respectively. The net power output
to determine the stack performance and behavior in terms of polariza­ and thermal efficiency of the ORC subsystem (Ẇnet and ηth,ORC ) can be
tion curves under various operating conditions. The stoichiometry
identified by Eq. (16) and Eq. (17), respectively.
reactor (RStoic) model was employed to simulate the single cell where
the hydrogen oxidation reaction takes place, and a Fortran block Q̇cond = ṁw ⋅ (ho3 − ho4 ) = ṁCW2− IN ⋅(hCW2− OUT − hCW2− IN ) (14)
calculator was used to compute the electrochemical relations (voltage,
current, overpotential losses, power generated, etc) for evaluating the Q̇Evap = ṁ18 ⋅ (h18 − h20 ) = ṁw ⋅(ho2 − ho1 ) (15)
cell behavior. The proportion of oxidized fuel during the reaction pro­
cess is employed to evaluate fuel utilization. Ẇ net = Ẇ exp − Ẇ pump (16)
The actual voltage of the cell (VSOFC ) is calculated by subtracting the
potential losses from the Nernst voltage (VN) as shown in Eq. (7). The Ẇ net
ηth,ORC = (17)
Nernst potential is calculated by Eq. (8) [38]. The main parameters used Q̇Evap
in the calculation are listed in Table 2.
VSOFC = VN − (Vact + Vcon + Vohm ) (7) 3.5. S–CO2 Brayton cycle
( )
2
1.418TSOFC 3
− 3020TSOFC + 182⋅10 4
RTSOFC pH2 p0.5 The S–CO2 Brayton cycle is an advanced cycle with high thermal
(8)
O2
VN = + ln
2F 2F pH2 O efficiency. It includes a single compressor, a single turbine, a waste heat
cooler, a heater, and a recuperator, as shown in Fig. 1. The turbine’s
electrical energy generation (Ẇturb ) and the compressor’s power con­
Table 2
Parameters used in the SOFC model [38,39]. sumption (Ẇcomp3 ) can be expressed by Eq. (18) and Eq. (19),
respectively.
Parameters Unit Value Parameters Unit Value

αA – 1.15 ξ 0.3 Ẇ turb = ṁCO2 ⋅(hC1 − hC2 ) (18)

αC – 0.47 τ 3
Ea,A kJ/kmol 120,000 a 1 Ẇ comp3 = ṁCO2 ⋅(hC5 − hC4 ) (19)
Ea,C kJ/kmol 120,000 b 1
A/m2 1.1 × 1010 The efficiency of the S–CO2 Brayton cycle (ηS− CO2 ) is shown in Eq.
γA c 0.25
A/m2 1.1 × 109 iL A/m2 60,000
(20) [42].
γC

4
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Ẇ net,S− CO2 Ẇ tur − Ẇ comp3 Table 3

ηS− CO2 = = (20) Standard chemical exergy of components [42,49].
Q̇heater Q̇heater
Substances ėx0,j (kJ/kmol) Substances ėx0,j (kJ/kmol)

3.6. Gas turbine H2O (l) 3,120 H2S 804,770

H2O (g) 11,710 NH3 341,250
N2 690 C 410,820
The output electrical energy of the gas turbine (ẆGT ) is expressed by CH4 3,970 S 598,850
Eq. (21) [43]. O2 836,510 HCl 84,500
CO 275,430 Cl2 123,600
Ẇ GT = ṁ30 ⋅ (h30 − h31 )⋅ηm,GT (21) CO2 20,140 H2 238,490
R245fa 1,062
where ṁ30 is the mass flow rate of the inlet gas mixture; h30 and h31
represent the mass enthalpies of stream 30 and stream 31, respectively;
LHVbiomass represents the input biomass’s lower heating value (kJ/kg).
ηm,GT denotes the mechanical efficiency, which is assumed as 0.99.
ηH2 , ηheat , and ηelec denote the efficiencies of hydrogen, heat, and elec­
tricity generation, respectively.
4. Performance evaluation of the system

Energy, exergy, economic, and emergy (4E) analyses are employed 4.2. Exergy analysis model
to assess the system performance in this work. The indicators involve
energy efficiency, exergy efficiency, capital cost and levelized cost of Exergy analysis is based on the second law of thermodynamics and
hydrogen, income cash flow, and emergy-based indicators, namely EYR, offers an enlightening way of objectively evaluating and comparing
ELR, ESI, %R, and EIR. processes and systems [45]. Exergy is not just a thermodynamic quantity
but rather a property of a system. It is destroyed whenever an irre­
4.1. Energy assessment versible process takes place [46]. There exist various types of exergies,
including chemical exergy (Ėxch ), physical exergy (Ėxph ), potential
The performance of an energy conversion system is determined using exergy (Ėxp ), and kinetic exergy (Ėxk ). The total exergy of a system is
analysis criteria based on the first law of thermodynamics. Eq. (22) and expressed as Eq. (29) [47].
Eq. (23) can be used to express the mass balance and energy balance of
each component, respectively [44]. Ėx = Ėxch + Ėxp + Ėxph + Ėxk (29)
∑ ∑
ṁ = ṁ (22) Since the proposed system is at a steady state, the kinetic exergy and
in out potential exergy can be neglected. The total exergy of component i is
∑ ∑ defined as the sum of its physical and chemical exergies, as shown by Eq.
Q̇ + ṁ⋅h = Ẇ + ṁ⋅h (23) (30). The expressions for calculating the physical exergy and chemical
in out
exergy are given by Eq. (31) and Eq. (32), respectively [48].
where ṁ refers to the mass flow rate, h is the specific enthalpy, subscripts Ėxi = Ėxch,i + Ėxph,i (30)
in and out show the inlet and outlet stream, Q̇ and Ẇ present the heat
[ ]
load and the power, respectively. ∑
k ∑
k

The total energy input of the system is determined using Eq. (24). Ėxph,i = ni (hi − ho ) − To (si − so ) (31)
Hydrogen production efficiency can be calculated by referring to its LHV
i=1 i=1

and the amount of hydrogen generation, as shown in Eq. (25). The ef­ (
∑
k ∑
k
)
ficiencies of heat and electricity generation are obtained by Eqs. (26) Ėxch,i = ni xi ėx0,i + RTo xi ln xi (32)
and (27). The overall energy efficiency of the BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP i=1 i=1

hybrid system (ηenergy ) can be calculated by Eq. (28).

where ėx0,i is the standard chemical exergy of component i, hi , si , ni , and
Ėin = Ėbiomass + Q̇totalin = mbiomass ⋅LHVbiomass + Q̇totalin (24) xi represent the specific enthalpy, specific entropy, molar flow rate, and
mole fraction of component i, respectively, and subscript 0 means the
ṁH2 ⋅LHVH2 reference state (25 ◦ C, 1 atm). The standard chemical exergies of
η H2 = (25)
Ėin different components are presented in Table 3. The physical exergy of
each stream can be obtained based on the Aspen Plus simulation results.
ηheat =
Q̇net
(26) Biomass is a solid fuel, and its exergy (Ėxbiomass ) can be calculated by
Ėin Eq. (33) [50]. The coefficient β can be identified based on Eq. (34) [51].
( ) ( ) The LHV of biomass (LHVbiomass ) is calculated by Eq. (35) [52].
Ẇ GT + Ẇ SOFC + Ẇ exp + Ẇ turb − Ẇ comp1 + Ẇ comp2 + Ẇ comp3 + Ẇ P1 + Ẇ P2
ηelec =
Ėin Ėxbiomass = β⋅ṁbiomass ⋅LHVbiomass (33)
(27) [ ] [ ]( [ ])
H
1.0414 + 0.0177 C
− 0.3328 OC 1 + 0.0537 HC
ηenergy = ηH2 + ηheat + ηelec (28) β= [ ] (34)
1 − 0.4021 OC
where ṁbiomass and ṁH2 represent the mass flow rates (kg/s) of input
biomass and the amount of hydrogen leaving the system, Q̇totalin is the
LHVbiomass = HHVbiomass − 0.212⋅wt.%H − 0.0008⋅(wt.%O + wt.%N) (35)
total energy input (kW) from the steam, process water, cooling water,
and air, Q̇net is the heat generated (kW) from the system, Ẇcomp,k and ẆPj where HHVbiomass is the higher heating value of the biomass.
refer to the power consumption (kW) of compressor k and pump j, The exergy destruction in a device can be expressed in Eq. (36). For
respectively. ẆGT , ẆSOFC , Ẇexp , and Ẇturb denote the power output (kW) the k-th device, the exergy destruction and the relative exergy destruc­
from the gas turbine, SOFC, expander, and turbine, respectively. tion percentages (ηd,k and η∗d,k ) are specified by Eq. (37) and Eq. (38),

5
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

respectively. Eq. (39) shows the exergy efficiency of component i. The materials cost, land rent, etc. The capital cost is estimated by using a
total exergy efficiency (ηex ) of the overall cogeneration system can be Lang factor, according to (41) [54].
calculated by Eq. (40). ∑
CC = Zk × f (41)
Ėxd,k = Ėxf ,in − Ėxp,out (36)
∑
where Zk is the total cost of equipment items, f is the Lang factor and
Ėxd,k is taken as 3.63.
ηd,k = × 100 (37)
Ėxf ,k The cost equations of different types of equipment components are
shown in Table 4. The cost of each component is adjusted to the year
Ėxd,k (2022) using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI2022 =
η∗d,k = ∑ × 100 (38)
Ėxd,k 832.6), and the relation is expressed as Eq. (42) [34].
CEPCI (of the present year)
Ėxp,i Zk = Zk0 × (42)
ηex,i = × 100 (39) CEPCI 0 (of the base year)
Ėxf ,i
The yearly income cash flow of the hybrid system (CF) is estimated
Ėx by Eq. (43) [55]. Yi denotes the annual energy parameter of the specific
ηex = total,OUT (40) product i (i can be heat, H2, and electricity represented by elec), and k
Ėxtotal,IN
refers to the specific cost. The specific cost of each product is shown in
where Ėxtotal,IN and Ėxtotal,OUT are the total exergy input and output of the Table 5.
system. CF = YH2 ⋅kH2 + Yelec ⋅kelec + Yheat ⋅kheat (43)
The exergy efficiencies of cooler-3, SEP-1, SEP-2, Flash, MIX-1,
DECOMP, and B-SEP are assumed to be 0.75. The calculated exergy
and exergy destruction efficiencies calculations are summarized in table
Table 5
A1. Economic analysis data.
Parameters Value Unit Reference

4.3. Economic analysis model Plant lifetime, N 30 Years [42]

Plant operating hours, H 8000 hours [58]
Heat cost, kheat 0.029 $/kWh [56]
The economic study of a chemical process gives more details about
Hydrogen cost, kH2 10.54 $/kg [56]
the overall financial performance of the suggested configuration [53]. In Cost of electricity, kelec 0.065 $/kWh [59]
this study, the proposed system is evaluated based on the total annual Water cost, Cw 0.043 $/ton [58]
cost, which is the sum of the total operational cost (OPC) and the capital Cost of steam, Pst 0.035 $/kg [59]
cost (CC), and the latter includes equipment cost, installation cost, input

Table 4
Cost equations for each component.
Component Cost correlation Year CEPCI0 Refs.
( )0.78
Heat Exchanger AHX 2005 468.2 [42]
ZHX = 130 ×
0.093
[ ]
Pump 0.2 2013 583.7 [42]
ZP = 705.48 × W0.71 1+
P
1 − ηis
Expander Zexp = 4405 × W0.7
exp
2017 623.5 [42]
Mixer ZMIX = 50 × ṁ 2019 652.9 [42]
( ) ( )
Condenser ṁg Pin 2000 394.1 [57]
ZGT = 479.34 × ⋅ln ⋅[1 + exp(0.036Tin − 54.4)]
0.92 − ηis,GT Pout
( )0.6
Evaporator Acond 1995 381.1 [57]
Zcond = 8000 ×
100
( )
Gas Turbine Aevap 0.6 2000 394.1 [57]
Zevap = 16000 ×
100
Compressor 46.08ṁair 1995 381.1 [47]
ZCOMP = ⋅[1 + exp(0.018T − 26.4)]
0.995 − 0.98
Valve ZV = 114.5 × ṁ 2017 623.5 [42]
Reformer log10 (ZRef ) = 3.4974 + 0.4485 log10 Vr + 0.1074(log10 Vr )2 2008 575.4 [42]
SOFC ZSOFC = A × N × (2.96T − 1907) 2007 525.4 [34]
Decomp. Reactor log10 (ZDECOMP ) = 3.4974 + 0.4485 log10 Vr + 0.1074(log10 Vr )2 2008 575.4 [42]
Gasifier ZG = 1600 × (ṁdry− biomass )0.67 2012 590.8 [34]
( )
Waste heat collector AWHC 0.78 2005 468.2 [42]
ZWHC = 130 ×
0.093
( )
Heater AHeater 0.78 2005 468.2 [42]
ZHeater = 130 ×
0.093
( )
Cooler ACOOL 0.78 2005 468.2 [42]
ZCOOL = 130 ×
0.093
( )
Turbine Ẇturb 0.5561 2019 652.9 [42]
Zturb = 182600 × × f turb
1000
{
1 if Tmax < 550 Co
f turb =
1 + 1.106 × 10− 4 (Tmax − 550o C)2 if Tmax ≥ 550o C
( )
Recuperator ARECUP 0.78 2005 468.2 [42]
ZRECUP = 130 ×
0.093

6
I. Tera et al.
The production cost of hydrogen production depends on the evalu­
ation method and currency exchange rate. When 1 euro = 1.054 $
(estimation of the year 2022), it varies between 1.054–3.162 $/kg [56].
In this study, the selling price of hydrogen is taken as 10.54 $/kg.
The levelized hydrogen cost (LCOH) is used to evaluate the capital
and operational costs for producing hydrogen [56]. It is calculated using
Eq. (44).
LCOH =
(CC + OPC) − (Ẇ net ⋅kelec + Q̇net ⋅kheat )
(44)
ṁH2
where Ẇnet is the net power output of the system, Q̇net is the net heat
generated.
4.4. Emergy analysis
4.4.1. Emergy and its evaluation method
A system’s stability is crucial for evaluating its industrial develop­
ment and environmental protection potential. The stability of a cogen­
eration system can be effectively assessed from both economic and
environmental standpoints [60]. All inlets should be taken into account
when assessing the stability of the developed system [61]. The biosphere
is driven by solar energy and the source of resources and environmental
services [62]. Emergy, introduced in 1971 [30], is defined as the
quantity of available energy in unit energy consumed either directly or
indirectly to create a product [30]. The emergy that is consumed to
generate a specific product is expressed in solar emjoules, abbreviated as
sej (small j) to distinguish it from the abbreviation of the internationally
recognized energy unit Joule known as J (capital J) [63]. A system’s
anticipated degree of usefulness increases with the amount of emergy
required to maintain the system. Transformity is considered the central
concept in emergy analysis and is defined as the emergy required to
make a service or product divided by its energy [64]. It serves as a
practical means of ascertaining the emergy of commonly utilized re­
sources and goods. The majority of transformity values found in the
literature are based on the transformity values calculated by Odum and
colleagues in their work.
The procedures of emergy analysis consist of identifying the research
field, selecting emergy baseline, gathering input and output data, and
emergy indices calculation. The Emergy flow diagram of the developed
hybrid system is presented in Fig. 3. The input sources of the system are
Fig. 3. Emergy flow diagram of the developed hybrid system.
7
Energy 295 (2024) 131015
divided into two categories, purchased emergy (red color) and renew­
able resources (green flow), as shown in Fig. 3. Since non-renewable
resources are not a part of this system, they are not taken into consid­
eration. The system contains five production or conversion units orga­
nized and interconnected by energy flows and many transaction blocks.
Each transaction block interacts with an economic system. Electricity,
heat, and hydrogen represent the emergy benefits from the system, as
indicated by the arrows pointing to the market block. In this work, the
selected emergy baseline is 12.1 × 1024 sej/yr, the one introduced in
2016. Therefore, the emergy transformity of each input item calculated
on the basis other than that of 2016 must be recalculated based on the
baseline for 2016 [65]. The emergy values are obtained by multiplying
the annual input values and the corresponding emergy transformities,
and the results are listed in Table 6.
The Emergy analysis starts by first categorizing all inlets of the
studied system into three groups, including renewable resources (R),
non-renewable resources (N), and purchased inputs (F) [66]. The total
input emergy of system (Y) is obtained based on Eq. (45) [67].
Y =R +N + F (45)
4.4.2. Emergy indices
The primary emergy indices include the renewability scale (%R),
emergy yield ratio (EYR), environmental loading rate (ELR), sustain­
ability index (ESI), and emergy investment ratio (EIR).
4.4.2.1. Renewability scale (%R). The renewability scale indicates the
extent to which the system is renewable and can be calculated by Eq.
(46). Higher values suggest that the process is heavily reliant on
renewable resources supplies and vice versa.
R R
%R = = (46)
Y R+F+N
4.4.2.2. Emergy yield ratio (EYR). EYR represents the ratio of the total
emergy input to the total purchased emergy, as shown by Eq. (47). It
reveals the dependency of the system on economic inputs such as
funding, facility, human resources, and so forth, and the system’s ability
to utilize the available emergy resources [70]. The higher the EYR, the
lower the reliance of the system on the inputs. The EYR sheds light on
the benefit of a production process to society [67].
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Table 6
Emergy evaluation data. 4.4.2.5. Emergy investment ratio (EIR). The EIR is defined as the ratio of
economical supplies to local supplies consisting of renewable and non-
Items Value Unit Tranformity (sej/ Emergy (sej/
unit) year)
renewable resources, as shown in Eq. (51). High EIR indicates that the
process is costly and the system’s ability to compete economically is
Renewable resources (R)
limited, while low EIR shows that the system has a minimal economic
Water 1.13 × kg/ 4.42 × 108 [63] 4.98 × 1015
108 year investment and is more competitive in the market than other systems
Air 1.61 × kg/ 5.16 × 1010 [30] 8.30 × 1018 [72].
108 year
Steam 1.08 × kg/ 2.04 × 1010 [68] 2.20 × 1018 F
EIR = (51)
108 year R+N
10 18
Biomass 8.00 × kg/ 9.96 × 10 [30] 7.97 × 10
107 year According Eq. (51), an alternative expression of Eq. (47) can be
Total 1.85 × 1019 obtained to calculate EYR, as shown in Eq. (52). It can be concluded that
Non-renewable N/A N/A N/A N/A
the larger the ratio of local sources (renewable and non-renewable) to
resources (N) non-local sources (economic inputs), the higher the EYR index, and vice
versa.
Purchased inputs (F)
Capital cost 2.18 × $/year 1.42 × 1012 3.10 × 1019 1
108 EYR = 1 + (52)
EIR
Labor cost 1.31 × $/year 1.42 × 1012 1.86 × 1018
106 The detailed steps for evaluating the proposed process are shown in
Utility cost 3.80 × $/year 1.42 × 1012 5.40 × 1018 Fig. 4. As can be seen, the initial data are first inputted in the Aspen Plus
106
Biomass 1.66 × $/year 1.37 × 105 [69] 2.28 × 1011
software and the simulation is performed to acquire the parameters of
transportation 106 streams and blocks. The output parameters from the Aspen Plus simu­
Ash disposal 2.21 × $/year 1.37 × 105 [69] 3.03 × 1010 lation are transferred to Excel software, where the different calculations
105 are conducted based on Eq. (7) ~ (21). Based on the results of these
Total 3.83 × 1019
calculations, the SOFC, ORC, and S–CO2 Brayton cycle models are
Outputs (Y) 5.67 × 1019
Hydrogen 5.06 × kg/ 1.12 × 1013 validated by comparison with literature data. This step displays the
106 year interaction between the MATLAB program and Excel software. The next
Electricity 1.60 × J/year 3.55 × 105 step is to determine the system’s energy and exergy efficiencies and to
1014 conduct economic and emergy analyses by using the simulation and
Heat 2.70 × J/year 2.10 × 105
1014
calculation results. As displayed in Fig. 4, this step was executed by
Aspen Plus and Excel software. The sensitivity analysis is then carried
out in Aspen Plus software to identify the best solutions for various
Y R+F+N outputs. The “Adjust input variables” step consists of varying some
EYR = = (47)
F F effective input parameters to maximize or minimize the generation of
certain products in order to achieve the optimal operating conditions of
4.4.2.3. Environmental loading ratio (ELR). The ELR indicator is defined the hybrid system. For instance, in order to avoid additional expenses,
as the ratio between the total emergy of non-renewable environmental the flowrates of steam and cooling water have been tuned to find the
inputs to the total emergy of renewable resources and purchased inputs, precise amount required by the system for heating or cooling. Process
as shown in Eq. (48). It assesses the environmental impact of a particular water flowrate was manipulated using sensitivity analysis and set to a
system. Low ELR indicates the system has a low environmental impact; value where the system generates the maximum amount of hydrogen
higher ELR reflects more non-renewable and economical supplies while minimizing the CO2 and unconverted CH4 molar fractions from
demanded. When ELR<2, the system is considered to have a low envi­ the reformer. The SOFC’s air intake flow rate was adjusted to a
ronmental influence, 3 < ELR<10 indicates a medium impact on the maximum flow rate to achieve the maximum electrical energy output
environment, and ELR>10 relates a high environmental influence [66]. from the gas turbine and the lowest LCOH of system. A thorough eval­
uation of the hybrid system and its various components can be carried
N+F
ELR = (48) out using the analysis results mentioned above. Table 7 summarizes
R
some critical parameters used for evaluating the developed hybrid sys­
ELR can also be rewritten as a function of %R, as shown by Eq. (49). tem. All these parameters were obtained from the literature and
1 − %R assumed to be reliable. They are not subject to any change during the
ELR = (49) simulation and analysis of the hybrid system.
%R

4.4.2.4. Emergy sustainability index (ESI). ESI is considered one of the
most important indicators of emergy analysis and can be calculated by
Eq. (50). It is the combination of both economic and environmental
aspects of the system and displays a system’s ability to produce with
little environmental impact while maintaining enough economic per­
formance. A system with better resource utilization efficiency and less
environmental effect has a high ESI. Generally, an ESI less than 1 in­
dicates that a system has high instability in the long term, while an ESI
greater than 5 describes a system with long-term stability. For ESI be­
tween 1 and 5, the system is considered stable and sustainable in the
medium term [71].
ESI =
EYR
(50)
ELR
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Validation of the models
The model validation of the proposed system is conducted by
comparing the simulation results with the experiment or literature data.
The simulation results of the S–CO2 Brayton cycle and Organic Rankine
cycle are compared with those reported in Refs. [76,77], respectively, as
shown in Table 8. It can be seen that the simulation results are in good
agreement with the literature data. The relative errors of the efficiency
are 4.58 % for the S–CO2 Brayton cycle and 3.13% for the Organic
Rankine cycle. In addition, it can be noticed that the efficiencies of both
subsystems are improved compared to those reported in the literature.
The relative error was obtained based on Eq. (53).

8
I. Tera et al.
Fig. 4. Steps for evaluating the proposed process.
⃒ ⃒
⃒literature value − simulation value⃒
Error = ⃒⃒ ⃒ × 100
literature value ⃒ marized in Table 9. The net hydrogen and power output are 632.59 kg/h
The electrochemical model of the SOFC has also been verified. The
direct voltage calculation techniques are applied to determine the
voltage with current densities in the range of 0–15,000 A/m2. The
calculation results are compared with the experimental data from Wu
et al. [78], as depicted in Fig. 5. The experimental voltage-current
density curve is quite close to the simulation results generated by the
proposed model, and the maximum error is less than 5%. Therefore, the
electrochemical model used for SOFC simulation is reliable for the sys­
tem performance evaluation.
5.2. Energy and exergy analysis
The performance of the BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP system is evaluated
under the fixed biomass mass flow rate of 10,000 kg/h following the
Energy 295 (2024) 131015
procedure shown in Fig. 4. The performance analysis results are sum­
(53)
and 5,642.63 kW, respectively. The overall energy efficiency, ηenergy, is
76.82%, with hydrogen production efficiency reaching 45%. The elec­
tricity output of the SOFC unit is 2,072.22 kW, and the combined elec­
tricity generated by the S–CO2 Brayton cycle and organic Rankine cycle
is 245.11 kW. The gas turbine produces 4,152.24 kW of electricity under
the system’s design operating conditions. It should be mentioned that
the system requires roughly 905 kW of power input for auxiliary com­
ponents, including compressors and pumps. This hybrid system’s net
power efficiency and heat efficiency (ηelec and ηheat) are estimated to be
12.04% and 19.76%, respectively.
The exergy performance (exergy destruction and exergy efficiencies)
of each system item is assessed using the exergy balance, and the results
are summarized in Table A1 in the Appendix. It can be seen that the
gasifier, as expected, is the component that has the highest exergy
9
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Table 7
Some critical parameters used for evaluating the developed hybrid system.
Parameter Value

Gasification unit [73,74]

Operating pressure 1 bar
Operating temperature of the gasifier 800 ◦ C
Inlet temperature of steam 895 ◦ C
Inlet temperature of air 25 ◦ C
Reforming section [74]
Operating temperature of the reformer 900 ◦ C
Operating pressure of the reformer 16 bar
SOFC unit [43,74]
Operating temperature 800 ◦ C
Operating pressure 5 bar
Fuel utilization 0.75
Current density 2000 A/m2
Anode thickness 0.1 mm
Cathode thickness 2.2 mm
Electrolyte thickness 0.04 mm
ORC cycle [42,43,75]
Working fluid R245fa
Critical temperature 427 K
Critical pressure 3.65 MPa ( )
Isentropic efficiency of the turbine 0.85
Mechanical efficiency of the turbine 0.99 Fig. 5. Comparison of the simulation results and experimental data [78].
Isentropic efficiency of the pump 0.85
S–CO2 Brayton cycle [42,76]
Inlet temperature of turbine 700 ◦ C
Highest pressure 25 bar Table 9
Lowest pressure 7.4 bar Performance analysis results of the proposed BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP.
Efficiency of the compressor 0.89 Parameters Unit Value
Efficiency of the turbine 0.93
SOFC power output kW 2,072.22
S–CO2 electrical power kW 243.91
ORC electrical power kW 1.20
Table 8 Gas turbine electricity output kW 4,152.24
Comparison between the simulation results and literature data. Net power output kW 5,642.63
Hydrogen production kg/h 632.59
Process Parameters This Reference Relative error Heat generation capacity kW 9,258.69
work (%) Heat production efficiency % 19.76
ORC cycle R245fa mass flow rate 0.052 0.052 N/A Power production efficiency % 12.04
[77] (kg/s) Hydrogen Production efficiency % 45
Thermal efficiency (%) 9.57 9.28 3.13 Overall energy efficiency % 76.82
S–CO2 cycle Turbine efficiency (%) 93 93 N/A Overall exergy efficiency % 60.64
[76] Compressor efficiency 89 89 N/A Levelized cost of hydrogen $/kg 4.06
(%) Income cash flow M$/year 58.42
Turbine inlet 700 500–850 N/A
temperature (◦ C)
Compressor inlet 32 32 N/A 1.92%, and the organic Rankine cycle subsystem accounts for only 0.2%
temperature (◦ C) of the exergy losses. The thermodynamic parameters of each stream in
Maximum pressure 25 25 N/A
the hybrid model are listed in Table A3 in the Appendix.
(MPa)
Pressure ratio 3.4 3.4 N/A
Cycle efficiency (%) 42.25 40.40 4.58 5.3. Economic assessment

destruction, estimated at 13,167.59 kW and accounting for 49.12% of
the total exergy destruction. The significant exergy loss in the gasifier is
due to the complex chemical reactions occurring inside the gasifier. The
second and third components with the highest exergy destruction are the
heat exchanger HX-2 and the decomposition unit, accounting for 8.26%
and 7.60% of the total exergy losses, respectively. The exergy destruc­
tion in HX-2 is caused by the significant temperature difference (400 ◦ C)
between the inlet and outlet streams, while that of the decomposition
reactor is due to the decomposition reactions taking place inside.
Comparatively, the SOFC’s exergy destruction is only 691.63 kW, ac­
counting for 2.60% of the total exergy destroyed. This low exergy
destruction is attributed to the waste heat being recycled into the anode
and cathode streams. The reformer and combustor, on the other hand,
contribute to 4.44% and 7.04% of the total exergy lost, respectively. The
Sankey diagram of exergy destruction contribution for each subsystem
and set of components is displayed in Fig. 6. As can be observed, the
gasification subsystem contributes to the most significant part of exergy
destruction. The auxiliary components such as mixers, valves, pumps,
and compressors have a low exergy destruction contribution of about
The hybrid system’s economic performance was evaluated based on
the income cash flow (CF) and the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH).
The economic analysis shows that the CF and LCOH are 58.42 M$/year
and 4.06 $/kg, respectively. The LCOH value is supported by LCOH
values reported in previous works [79,80], further validating the
model’s effectiveness. The results are summarized in Table 9.
5.4. Emergy analysis
With biomass, air, steam, and water all considered renewable, the
input emergy to the system is shown in Table 6. It is important to note
that the economic data utilized in the emergy analysis are the same as
those obtained from the economic assessment results. The capital cost,
including the cost of equipment, installation, facility renting, input
materials, etc., is 21.84 M$/year, and the labor cost is assumed to be 6%
of the capital cost. The calculations indicate that the system’s total
emergy input is 5.68 × 1019 sej/year. Renewable resources account for
32.5% of the total emergy input, while the purchased inputs account for
67.5%. The utility cost equals 3.8 M$/year. The ash disposal cost is

10
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Fig. 6. Sankey diagram of exergy destruction in the system.

calculated at 221,000 $/year. The cost of landfilling ash, excluding any
expenses associated with transportation outside the landfill, is taken as
16.33 $/metric ton [81]. The cost of biomass transportation estimated
over a distance of 80 km is 20.77 $/ton of rice straw [82]. The total cost
of biomass transportation is 1.66 M$/year. The transformity values are
1.12 × 1013 sej/kg, 3.55 × 105 sej/J, and 2.10 × 105 sej/J for hydrogen,
electricity, and heat generated, respectively. The transformity value
reveals the required amount of emergy needed to produce 1 J of cor­
responding energy.
The calculated emergy indices are shown in Table 10. The %R value
is 0.325, meaning that 32.5% of the system’s overall emergy re­
quirements come from renewable resources. The ESI indicator has a
value of less than 1, indicating that the system is not sustainable
economically and environmentally in the long run. The EYR indicator is
1.48, which is in the range of typical electricity generation systems
(1.06–1.51) [83], illustrating that the proposed system effectively ex­
ploits the available emergy for producing items that benefit society.
However, it can be deduced from the EIR index (2.072) and the EYR
value that the system depends heavily on the purchased emergy.
Therefore, its capacity to be competitive economically in the market is
limited. The ELR in Table 10 is 2.072, which is less than 3, and suggests
that the system has low environmental effects in the long term.
include the current density of the SOFC, the inlet flowrate of the
biomass, the steam-to-biomass (S/B) ratio, and the flowrate of the input
air to the SOFC.
Fig. 7 presents the effect of biomass flow rate on the combined mole
fractions of CH4, CO, and H2 in the outlet syngas from gasification and
the total hydrogen output from the system. The sum of the mole frac­
tions of these elements in the syngas slightly decreases as the mass
flowrate of input biomass increases. On the contrary, the total amount of
hydrogen generated by the system increases with the biomass flow rate.
The influence of the combustor’s outlet temperature on the gas tur­
bine’s power output and the system’s overall energy efficiency is
depicted in Fig. 8. In this system, the gas turbine’s power efficiency and
the system’s overall efficiency augment with the rise of the combustor’s
outlet temperature. This is attributed to the dependency of the gas tur­
bine’s energy efficiency on the high outlet temperature of the combus­
tion chamber; the higher this temperature, the better the energy

6. Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is an approach that helps comprehend how var­

iations in input parameters affect the system’s performance. It has been
performed directly in Aspen Plus to target the optimal operating con­
ditions for the developed system. The effective parameters considered

Table 10
Emergy indexes.
Index Value Index Value

EYR 1.48 ESI 0.71

%R 0.325 EIR 2.072
Fig. 7. Influence of biomass flow rate on the system’s hydrogen production and
ELR 2.072
concentration of CH4, CO, and H2 in the syngas from the biomass gasification.

11
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Fig. 8. Effect of the combustor’s outlet temperature on GT’s power output and
energy efficiency. Fig. 10. Influence of SOFC air intake mass flow rate on the power generated by
the SOFC and gas turbine.

efficiency of the gas turbine, thus the higher the power output. Since the
electricity.
system’s overall energy efficiency directly depends on the power output
The influence of the steam-to-biomass (S/B) ratio is shown in Figs. 11
from the gas turbine, a rise in the latter increases the system’s overall
and 12. Fig. 11 shows that the S/B ratio has a little impact on the
energy efficiency.
composition of the gas outlet from the reformer. The molar fraction of
The SOFC is an important component in the proposed multi­
CO2 and unconverted CH4 drops slightly as the S/B rises, while that of
generation system. Fig. 9 illustrates the effects of the SOFC’s current
water increases obviously. The molar fraction of H2 and CO can also be
density on the system’s energy and exergy efficiencies. The system’s
seen to decrease slightly with increasing S/B ratio. This decrease in H2
overall exergy and energy efficiency are observed to drop as the current
and CO molar fraction is related to the increment in water content in the
density of the.
outlet gas.
SOFC augments. When the current density of the SOFC is varied
The total hydrogen production and the SOFC’s power output in­
between 0 A/m2 to 10,000 A/m2, the exergy efficiency of the system
crease with the S/B ratio, as illustrated in Fig. 12. The reason is that
drops by 1.24% from 61.08% to 59.84%, and the overall energy effi­
when the S/B ratio gets higher, the reformer’s unconverted CH4 un­
ciency is reduced by 1.81% from 77.67% to 75.86%. As the current
dergoes extra conversion, producing more hydrogen.
density of the SOFC increases, the power generated by the fuel cell de­
Fig. 13 depicts the effects of the SOFC’s air intake flow rate on the
creases. As a consequence, it directly reduces the overall energy and
system’s performance. The exergy efficiency rises monotonically as the
exergy efficiencies of the system.
air flow rate increases, while the LCOH and the energy efficiency
The influence of SOFC’s air intake mass flow rate on the power
decrease.
generation capacity is investigated and displayed in Fig. 10. The SOFC’s
The process water flow rate was manipulated while maintaining a
power output reduces significantly as the air flow rate increases, while
constant biomass flow rate of 10,000 kg/h to investigate the impacts of
the power generation of the gas turbine in contrast, rises sharply. The
the S/B ratio on system performance, and the results are illustrated in
decrement in the SOFC’s power output can be attributed to the rise of
Fig. 14. As can be seen, the best performance is achieved at a higher S/B
overpotentials in the SOFC resulting in its voltage drop. However, more
waste heat will be produced by the SOFC to increase the combustor’s
outlet temperature, allowing the gas turbine to generate more

Fig. 11. Influence of steam-to-biomass ratio on the reformer’s outlet gas

Fig. 9. Effect of SOFC current density on the system’s overall efficiencies. composition.

12
I. Tera et al.
Fig. 12. Influence of steam-to-biomass ratio on the total hydrogen production
rate and SOFC’s power output.
ratio (S/B ≈ 0.325). The energy efficiency and exergy efficiency both
increase by 0.31%, from 76.51% to 76.82% and 60.33%–60.64%,
respectively. Conversely, the LCOH is reduced by 69.95%, from 13.51
Fig. 13. Influence of the intake air flow rate of the SOFC on the system’s performance.
Fig. 14. Influence of the steam-to-biomass ratio on the system’s performance.
13
Energy 295 (2024) 131015
$/kg to 4.06 $/kg. Hence, the steam-to-biomass ratio is a crucial
parameter given its significant impact on system performance.
The influence of reformer pressure has also been investigated, and
the result is depicted in Fig. 15. It can be seen that the gas turbine’s
power output increases drastically as the reformer pressure increases.
On the other hand, hydrogen production and SOFC power generation
are greatly reduced, decreasing the overall energy efficiency of the
system.
Fig. 16 illustrates the effect of the reformer temperature on the sys­
tem performance. It is evident from this figure that the gas turbine’s
power output has a direct ratio to the reformer temperature. In contrast,
the hydrogen production rate and the SOFC’s power output drop
significantly as the reformer temperature rises. The system’s overall
energy efficiency drops by 0.28% from 76.82% to 76.54% as the
reformer temperature augments. Hence, it is apparent from these pat­
terns that the hybrid system’s performance is significantly influenced by
the reformer’s pressure and temperature.
Fig. 17 shows the effect of the S/B ratio on the emergy indices. When
S/B ratio varies, the emergy indexes all remain constant or change very
slightly. This result suggests that the S/B ratio has a little effect on the
emergy indicators.
Fig. 18 illustrates the effect of biomass flowrate on the hybrid system.
The EIR and ELR decrease rapidly as the biomass flowrate increases. The
increment in the biomass’ mass flowrate leads to an increase in the
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Fig. 15. Effect of the reformer pressure on the system’s performance.

Fig. 16. Effect of the reformer temperature on the system’s performance.

Fig. 17. Effect of steam-to-biomass ratio on the emergy indexes.

purchased cost of equipment as their size also increase and subsequently system more economically competitive as the biomass flowrate rises.
the purchased emergy (F). However, the variation trend of the EIR index The rise in the biomass flowrate makes the environmental impact of the
reveals that the renewable input emergy (R) is more than the purchased system lower. Thus, the ELR index decreases as the biomass flowrate
emergy. This reduces the system economic investment and makes the gets higher.

14
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Fig. 18. Effect of biomass flowrate on the emergy indicators.

On the other hand, the %R, EYR, and ESI increase linearly with the Table 11
increasing biomass flowrate. The increase in %R implies that the process Comparison of LCOH values between this work and other research works.
becomes more reliant on renewable resources supply as the biomass Reference Feedstock Technology LCOH Relative
flowrate increases. This enhances the system’s consumption of renew­ configuration ($/kg) error (%)
able resources as compared to the purchased inputs. In addition, the Wang et al. Biomass Solar-wind driven 4.16 2.4
system’s dependency on purchased emergy is reduced, and hence the [87] ethanol steam reforming
EYR gets higher. The decrease in environmental impacts and de­ via a membrane reactor
pendency upon purchased inputs increases the sustainability of the Mehrabian Biomass Hybrid solar-wind driven 10.76 62.27
et al. [88] (MSW) polygeneration system
system, as illustrated in Fig. 18, where the ESI index rises monotonically. Mehrabian Biomass Hybrid solar-wind driven 9.44 56.99
et al. [88] (olive pits) polygeneration system
7. Comparison with other studies M. Ruth et al. Biomass Gasification 1st Plant 5.40 24.81
[79]
a
H. R. Sara Biomass Fluidized-bed 13.44 69.79
The system’s energy and hydrogen production efficiencies are
et al. [89] gasification S/B = 1
compared with those reported in some CHHP polygeneration systems This work Biomass BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP 4.06 N/A
with high efficiencies [18,84–86], as illustrated in Fig. 19. It is evident hybrid system
from Fig. 16 that the present hybrid system exhibits better performance a
1 Euro = 1.054 $.
than many of these studies. The energy efficiency of the proposed system
is higher than all of these CHHP systems except the one reported by
work. These results highlight the system’s superiority in thermodynamic
Becker et al. [86]. However, the hydrogen production efficiency of the
performances and confirm that the present combined system represents
proposed hybrid system is far higher than that reported in Becker et al.’s
a high-efficiency energy conversion technology.
Table 11 shows a comparison between the LCOH value of the hybrid
system and those reported in the open literature. The proposed system
has lower LCOH and displays superiority in terms of economic perfor­
mance, further proving its effectiveness.

8. Conclusion

In this paper, a polygeneration system of hydrogen, heat, and power

Fig. 19. Comparison of the overall energy efficiency and hydrogen production
efficiency between this work and other studies.
is proposed and analyzed by means of mathematical modeling. The
system consists of biomass gasification, reformer, SOFC, organic
Rankine cycle, and S–CO2 Brayton cycle subsystems, and its perfor­
mance is evaluated through energy, exergy, economic, and emergy
analyses.
Under the given conditions, the integrated system could achieve a
gross hydrogen production efficiency and overall energy efficiency of
45% and 76.82%, respectively. The system possesses a net power output
of 5,642.63 kW and a heat generation capacity of 9,258.69 kW. The total
exergy destruction of the system is 26,809.028 kW. The gasifier has the
highest exergy destruction, accounting for 49.12% of the total exergy
destruction. The overall exergy efficiency of the system is 60.64%. The
income cash flow (CF) and the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) of the
proposed hybrid system are 58.42 M$/year and 4.06 $/kg, respectively.
The hybrid system has lower environmental impacts in the long run and
is capable of efficiently using the available resources to generate

15
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

products that benefit society. The total hydrogen output increases
significantly along the biomass mass flow rate. The rise of the SOFC
current density has a negative effect on the system performance and
reduces the overall energy and exergy efficiencies of the proposed pol­
ygeneration system.
In this study, the proposed model does not consider the tar formation
in the biomass gasification step and the reaction kinetics. Furthermore,
it is deduced from the emergy analysis that the system is extremely
dependent on non-local resources (purchased inputs), lowering its ca­
pacity to be economically competitive in the market. Therefore, further
investigations have to be done to overcome these limitations. In addi­
tion, a multi-objective optimization method can be considered in future
works to obtain the best results possible for some performance param­
eters, such as EYR, EIR, ESI, energy efficiency, and so forth, under the
given operating conditions of the system.
Writing – original draft, Validation, Visualization. Shengan Zhang:
Methodology, Visualization. Guilian Liu: Funding acquisition, Meth­
odology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments

CRediT authorship contribution statement Financial support provided by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (22078259) the Science and Technology Plan of Inner
Ibrahim Tera: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Mongolia (CN) (2023YFHH0108) are gratefully acknowledged.

Nomenclature

Abbreviation
ARC Absorption refrigeration cycle
BG Biomass gasification
CEPCI Chemical engineering plant cost
CF Cash flow
COMP Compressor
CHHP Combined hydrogen heat and power
CHP Combined heat and power
DECOMP Decomposition reactor
EIR Emergy investment ratio
ELR Environmental loading ratio
ERC Ejector refrigeration cycle
ESI Emergy sustainability index
EYR Emergy yield ratio
GT Gas turbine
HX Heat exchanger
IEA International Energy Association
IRRI International rice research institute
LCOH Levelized cost of hydrogen
MSR Methane steam reforming
ORC Organic Rankine cycle
RECUP Recuperator
RGibbs Gibbs reactor
RStoic Stoichiometric reactor
SEP Separator
SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
SRC Steam Rankine cycle
WGS Water gas-shift
%R Renewability ratio

Symbols
Ea Activation potential, kJ/kmol
Ex Exergy, kW
CC Capital cost, $/year
h Enthalpy, kJ/kg
HHV Higher heating value, MJ
iL Limit current density, A/m2
j0,i Electrode exchange density, A/m2
J Current density, A/m2
LHV Low heating value, MJ
ne Number of electrons transfer
OPC Total operational cost, $/year

16
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

R Gas constant, J/(mol⸱K)

s Entropy, kJ/(kg-K)
Vact Activation potential, V
Vcon Concentration potential, V
VN Nernst voltage, V
Vohm Ohmic potential, V
VSOFC Actual voltage of the cell, V
MSW Municipal solid wastes

Greek letters
δi Thickness, cm
σi Conductivity, S/cm
γi Pre-exponential parameter
τ Tortuosity
ξ Porosity
ηenergy Energy efficiency, %
ηH2 Hydrogen production efficiency, %
ηelec Electrical efficiency, %

Subscripts
i Anode, cathode or electrolyte, state
k k-th component

Appendix A
Table A1
The exergy analysis results of the proposed BG–SOFC–GT-CHHP hybrid system

Component Ėxf ,k (kW) Ėxp,k (kW) Ėxd,k (kW) ηex,k (%) ηd,k (%) η∗d,k (%)

HX-1 69,295.28 67,857.33 1,437.95 97.92 2.08 5.36

HX-2 55,676.43 53,461.90 2,214.53 96.02 3.98 8.26
HX-3 33,979.08 33,973.12 5.96 99.98 0.02 0.02
HX-4 8,586.32 8,039.85 546.47 93.64 6.36 2.04
HX-5 8,963.06 8,897.68 65.38 99.27 0.73 0.24
HX-6 10,220.60 10,027.43 193.17 98.11 1.89 0.72
HX-7 10,601.56 10,438.15 163.41 98.46 1.54 0.61
Cooler-1 12,795.80 12,563.16 232.64 98.18 1.82 0.87
Cooler-2 18,706.49 16,995.80 1,710.69 90.86 9.14 6.38
Cooler-3 4,066.53 4,008.00 58.53 98.56 1.44 0.43
Separator-1 38,659.96 38,607.21 52.75 99.86 0.14 0.20
Separator-2 17,249.15 17,200.54 48.61 99.72 0.28 0.18
Flash 17,252.18 17,188.08 64.1 99.63 0.37 0.24
Reformer 29,978.36 28,788.60 1,189.76 96.03 3.97 4.44
Combustor 16,571.20 14,682.70 1,888.50 88.60 11.40 7.04
Valve-1 8,636.58 8,472.88 163.70 98.10 1.90 0.61
Valve-2 8,459.20 8,223.22 235.98 97.21 2.79 0.88
SOFC 9,782.78 9,091.15 691.63 92.93 7.07 2.58
Compressor-1 295.80 268.86 26.94 90.89 9.11 0.10
Compressor-2 532.84 483.73 49.11 90.78 9.22 0.18
Mixer-1 30,009.56 29,978.36 31.20 99.90 0.10 0.12
Mixer-2 291.04 290.50 0.54 99.81 0.19 0.00
Mixer-3 20,786.37 20,786.37 0.00 100 0.00 0.00
Pump-1 157.91 157.69 0.22 99.86 0.14 0.00
Gas turbine 14,682.70 14,484.94 197.76 98.65 1.35 0.74
Splitter 28,788.60 28,788.60 0.00 100 0.00 0.00
ORC subsystem
Evaporator 18,714.88 18,709.13 5.75 99.97 0.03 0.02
Expander 2.64 2.44 0.20 92.42 7.58 0.00
Pump-2 0.80 0.80 0.00 100 0.00 0.00
Condenser 41.35 40.91 0.44 98.94 1.06 0.00
S–CO2 cycle
Heater 14,657.03 14,645.01 12.02 99.92 0.08 0.04
Recuperator 2,694.08 2,634.64 59.44 97.79 2.21 0.22
Turbine 1,849.21 1,840.22 8.99 99.51 0.49 0.03
WHC 1,636.28 1,594.79 41.49 97.46 2.54 0.15
Compressor-3 77.92 71.30 6.62 91.50 8.50 0.02
Biomass gasification
DECOMP 57,280.26 55,246.01 2,034.25 96.45 3.55 7.60
Ash-SEP 55,246.01 55,246.01 0.00 100 0.00 0.00
Gasifier 11,1102.81 97,935.22 13,167.59 88.15 11.85 49.12
BHX 1,548.42 1,500.29 48.13 96.89 3.11 0.18
B-SEP 43,153.76 43,056.55 97.21 99.77 0.23 0.36

17
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Table A2
Equations for calculating the SOFC polarization potentials [31,32].

Polarization Equations

Activation polarizations ( )
(p )a (P ) b −
Ea,A
RTSOFC 1 j
i = anode (A) or cathode (C) j0,A = γA ⋅ H2
H2 O
Vact,i = ⋅sinh− e RTSOFC
αi ne F 2j0,i P P
Ea,C
(p )c −
j0,C = γC ⋅ O2 ⋅e RTSOFC
P
Ohmic polarizations (∑ δ )
⋅J i = anode, cathode, or electrolyte (el)
i
Vohm =
σi ( ) ( )
Concentration polarizations RTSOFC 1 iL
Vcon = 1+ ln iL = limit current density
4F αC iL − J

Table A3
Thermodynamic parameters of each stream in the hybrid system

Stream m (kg/h) T (◦ C) P (bar) n (kmol/h) h (kJ/kg) s (J/kg-K)

Dry-Bio 10,000 25 1 0.00 − 4,897.06 0.00

2 10,000 400 1 0.00 − 4,146.70 0.00
3 10,000 800 1 0.00 − 2,961.09 0.00
4 8,889.20 800 1 534.44 − 2,911.55 5,426.14
5 8,506.87 800 1 344.78 − 3,552.81 4,603.97
6 382.33 800 1 189.66 11,356.20 18,739.90
7 8,506.87 900 1 344.78 − 3,410.38 4,730.85
8 25,899.70 912.18 1 823.27 − 4,006.59 1,874.64
9 3,244.80 25.13 16 180.11 − 15,970.10 − 9,323.13
10 5,970.28 31 15.7 331.39 − 15,943.00 − 9,234.11
11 5,970.28 900 15.7 331.39 − 11,580.40 − 924.59
12 25,899.70 80.51 1 823.27 − 5,012.23 446.68
13 14,477.20 898.84 16 676.17 − 6,779.64 2,082.68
14 14,477.20 900 16 680.15 − 7,029.37 2,002.36
15 10,134.00 900 16 476.10 − 7,029.37 2,002.36
16 4,343.15 900 16 204.04 − 7,029.37 2,002.36
17 10,134.00 498.52 16 476.10 − 7,769.8 1,232.22
18 10,134.00 496.02 16 476.10 − 7,774.19 1,226.52
19 4,343.15 900.03 5 204.04 − 7,029.37 2,457.45
20 10,134.00 38 16 476.10 − 9,202.28 − 1,958.78
21 9,298.30 227.07 5 322.29 206.02 214.91
22 9,298.30 311.92 5 322.29 294.90 378.996
23 4,343.15 800 5 204.04 − 7,219.65 2,287.95
24 9,298.30 800 5 322.29 837.76 1,050.38
25 25,899.70 947.08 1 823.27 − 3,959.81 1,913.54
26 25,899.70 1,090.48 1 823.27 − 3,764.92 2,064.52
27 13,641.40 800 5 506.37 − 2,454.66 1,463.78
28 5,100.00 227.07 5 176.77 206.02 214.91
29 5,100.00 800 5 176.77 837.76 1,050.38
30 25,899.70 1,591.63 5 823.27 − 3,057.54 2,080.21
31 25,899.70 1,180.55 1 823.27 − 3,640.52 2,152.85
32 7,408.52 38 15.7 324.83 − 6,734.12 687.21
33 2,725.48 38 15.7 151.27 − 15,910.70 − 9,130.48
34 7,158.27 38 15.7 200.69 − 6,981.70 821.47
35 250.26 38 15.7 124.14 190.89 − 10,707.20
36 250.26 38.33 1 124.14 190.89 478.67
37 382.33 433.08 1 189.66 5,920.49 12,549.30
38 382.33 38 1 189.66 186.14 663.42
AIR-1 9,298.30 25 1 322.29 − 0.28 151.13
AIR-2 5,100.00 25 1 176.77 − 0.28 151.13
C1 5,915.64 700 1 134.42 − 8,223.54 234.80
C2 5,915.64 536.27 1 134.42 − 8,419.4 253.15
C3 5,915.64 157 1 134.42 − 8,858.42 − 476.96
C4 5,915.64 32 1 134.42 − 9,061.30 − 1,054.8
C5 5,915.64 114.26 1 134.42 − 9,013.88 − 1,041.29
C6 5,915.64 422.92 1 134.42 − 8,574.86 − 189.84
CW1-IN 10,000.00 20 1 555.08 − 15,994.70 − 9,400.49
CW1-OUT 10,000.00 46.53 1 555.08 − 15,874.70 − 9,008.56
CW2-IN 833.00 20 1 46.24 − 15,994.70 − 9,400.49
CW2-OUT 833.00 30.68 1 46.24 − 15,946.40 − 9,238.58
EXH-GAS 25,899.70 25 1 823.27 − 4,897.06 − 306.97
H2 632.59 38.13 1 313.80 − 5,253.04 669.45
O1 187.20 35.90 8.5 1.40 − 8,936.91 − 4,251.38
O2 187.20 100 8.5 1.40 − 8,699.13 − 3,572.04
O3 187.20 67.63 2.15 1.40 − 8,722.45 − 3,559.89
O4 187.20 35.57 2.15 1.40 − 8,937.48 − 4,251.69
ST-IN 10,913.50 895 1 605.79 − 11,585.30 341.23
(continued on next page)

18
I. Tera et al. Energy 295 (2024) 131015

Table A3 (continued )
Stream m (kg/h) T (◦ C) P (bar) n (kmol/h) h (kJ/kg) s (J/kg-K)

ST-OUT 10,913.50 410 1 605.79 − 12,671.70 − 852.38

Water 3,244.80 25 1 180.11 − 15,972.10 − 9,323.96
B1 10,000 800 1 0.00 − 2,961.09 0.00
B2 10,000 800 1 694.13 1,404.40 2,979.09
B3 1,867.00 800 1 0.00 − 32.19 0.00
B4 8,133.00 800 1 694.13 1734.18 2,979.09
B5 13,829.30 800 1 729.43 − 1,564.66 4,238.01
B6 5,696.30 800 1 197.44 837.51 1,514.26
B7 8,889.20 800 1 534.44 − 2,911.55 5,426.14
B8 4,940.10 800 1 194.99 858.94 1,466.04
Air 5,696.30 25 1 197.44 − 0.28 151.13
BST-IN 2,580.00 895 1 143.21 − 11,585.30 341.23
BST-OUT 2,580.00 101.54 1 143.21 − 13,435.00 − 2,443.10

References [21] Jin H, Wang C, Fan C. Simulation study on hydrogen-heating-power poly-

generation system based on solar driven supercritical water biomass gasification
with compressed gas products as an energy storage system. J Therm Sci 2020;29:
[1] World energy outlook 2017. OECD; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2017-en.
365–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11630-020-1222-5.
[2] Gerling P. Reserves resources and availability of energy. Hannover: Federal
[22] Pipicelli M, Muccillo M, Gimelli A. Influence of the control strategy on the
Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources 2007.
performance of hybrid polygeneration energy system using a prescient model
[3] Bouckaert S, Pales AF, McGlade C, Remme U, Wanner B, Varro L, et al. Net zero by
predictive control. Appl Energy 2023;329:120302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2050: a roadmap for the global energy sector. 2021.
apenergy.2022.120302.
[4] IEA IEA. Global hydrogen review 2021. France: IEA Paris; 2021.
[23] Xing L, Li J. Proposal of biomass/geothermal hybrid driven poly-generation plant
[5] Zhang S, Liu G. Thermal design and performance optimization of the four-step
centering cooling, heating, power, and hydrogen production with CO2 capturing:
Cu–Cl cycle coupled with clean energy for hydrogen production. J Clean Prod
design and 3E evaluation. Fuel 2022;330:125593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2023;422:138593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138593.
fuel.2022.125593.
[6] Mong GR, Chong CT, Chong WWF, Ng J-H, Ong HC, Ashokkumar V, et al. Progress
[24] Schöffer SI, Klein SA, Aravind PV, Pecnik R. A solid oxide fuel cell- supercritical
and challenges in sustainable pyrolysis technology: reactors, feedstocks and
carbon dioxide Brayton cycle hybrid system. Appl Energy 2021;283:115748.
products. Fuel 2022;324:124777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124777.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115748.
[7] Hemalatha M, Sarkar O, Venkata Mohan S. Self-sustainable azolla-biorefinery
[25] Prestipino M, Piccolo A, Polito MF, Galvagno A. Combined bio-hydrogen, heat, and
platform for valorization of biobased products with circular-cascading design.
power production based on residual biomass gasification: energy, exergy, and
Chem Eng J 2019;373:1042–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.04.013.
renewability assessment of an alternative process configuration. Energies 2022;15:
[8] Ren X-Y, Feng X-B, Cao J-P, Tang W, Wang Z-H, Yang Z, et al. Catalytic conversion
5524. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155524.
of coal and biomass volatiles: a review. Energy & Fuels 2020;34:10307–63.
[26] Peng MY-P, Chen C, Peng X, Marefati M. Energy and exergy analysis of a new
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c01432.
combined concentrating solar collector, solid oxide fuel cell, and steam turbine
[9] Lee J-H, Lee EY. Preparation of biopolyol from empty fruit bunch saccharification
CCHP system. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2020;39:100713. https://doi.
residue using glycerol and PEG#300-Mediated liquefaction for application to bio-
org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100713.
polyester and bio-polyurethane production. J Wood Chem Technol 2017;37:
[27] Tan L, Dong X, Gong Z, Wang M. Investigation on performance of an integrated
283–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773813.2017.1297831.
SOFC-GE-KC power generation system using gaseous fuel from biomass
[10] He C, Tang C, Li C, Yuan J, Tran K-Q, Bach Q-V, et al. Wet torrefaction of biomass
gasification. Renew Energy 2017;107:448–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
for high quality solid fuel production: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;
renene.2017.02.012.
91:259–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.097.
[28] Peng T, Lu HF, Wu WL, Campbell DE, Zhao GS, Zou JH, et al. Should a small
[11] Mohamed BA, Ellis N, Kim CS, Bi X. Microwave-assisted catalytic biomass
combined heat and power plant (CHP) open to its regional power and heat
pyrolysis: effects of catalyst mixtures. Appl Catal B Environ 2019;253:226–34.
networks? Integrated economic, energy, and emergy evaluation of optimization
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.04.058.
plans for Jiufa CHP. Energy 2008;33:437–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[12] Wang P, Chen YM, Wang Y, Lee YY, Zong W, Taylor S, et al. Towards
energy.2007.02.004.
comprehensive lignocellulosic biomass utilization for bioenergy production:
[29] Khani N, Khoshgoftar Manesh MH, Onishi VC. 6E analyses of a new solar energy-
efficient biobutanol production from acetic acid pretreated switchgrass with
driven polygeneration system integrating CO2 capture, organic Rankine cycle, and
Clostridium saccharoperbutylacetonicum N1-4. Appl Energy 2019;236:551–9.
humidification-dehumidification desalination. J Clean Prod 2022;379:134478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134478.
[13] Susastriawan AAP, Saptoadi H, Purnomo. Small-scale downdraft gasifiers for
[30] Lin H-F, Mansir IB, Ameen HFM, Cherif A, Abdulwahab A, Dahari M, et al.
biomass gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:989–1003.
Economic, environmental and multi objective optimization of a clean tri-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.112.
generation system based co-firing of natural gas and biomass: an emergy
[14] Gholamian E, Zare V, Mousavi SM. Integration of biomass gasification with a solid
evaluation. Process Saf Environ Prot 2023;173:289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/
oxide fuel cell in a combined cooling, heating and power system: a thermodynamic
j.psep.2023.02.076.
and environmental analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:20396–406. https://
[31] Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Norani M. Sustainability assessment and emergy analysis of
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.217.
employing the CCHP system under two different scenarios in a data center. Renew
[15] Franco C, Pinto F, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. The study of reactions influencing the
Sustain Energy Rev 2021;150:111511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomass steam gasification process. Fuel 2003;82:835–42. https://doi.org/
rser.2021.111511.
10.1016/S0016-2361(02)00313-7.
[32] Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Noor NM. Rice straw utilisation for bioenergy
[16] Ahmad AA, Zawawi NA, Kasim FH, Inayat A, Khasri A. Assessing the gasification
production: a brief overview. Energies 2022;15:5542. https://doi.org/10.3390/
performance of biomass: a review on biomass gasification process conditions,
en15155542.
optimization and economic evaluation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:
[33] Jenkins B, Baxter L, Miles T, Miles T. Combustion properties of biomass. Fuel
1333–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030.
Process Technol 1998;54:17–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(97)00059-
[17] Dhahad HA, Ahmadi S, Dahari M, Ghaebi H, Parikhani T. Energy, exergy, and
3.
exergoeconomic evaluation of a novel CCP system based on a solid oxide fuel cell
[34] Wu Z, Zhu P, Yao J, Zhang S, Ren J, Yang F, et al. Combined biomass gasification,
integrated with absorption and ejector refrigeration cycles. Therm Sci Eng Prog
SOFC, IC engine, and waste heat recovery system for power and heat generation:
2021;21:100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100755.
energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, environmental (4E) evaluations. Appl Energy
[18] Perna A, Minutillo M, Jannelli E, Cigolotti V, Nam SW, Han J. Design and
2020;279:115794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115794.
performance assessment of a combined heat, hydrogen and power (CHHP) system
[35] Xu H, Chen B, Tan P, Sun Q, Maroto-Valer MM, Ni M. Modelling of a hybrid system
based on ammonia-fueled SOFC. Appl Energy 2018;231:1216–29. https://doi.org/
for on-site power generation from solar fuels. Appl Energy 2019;240:709–18.
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.091.
[19] De Lorenzo G, Fragiacomo P. Energy analysis of an SOFC system fed by syngas.
[36] Minutillo M, Perna A, Jannelli E. SOFC and MCFC system level modeling for hybrid
Energy Convers Manag 2015;93:175–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
plants performance prediction. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:21688–99. https://
enconman.2014.12.086.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.082.
[20] Zhang S, Liu H, Liu M, Sakaue E, Li N, Zhao Y. An efficient integration strategy for a
[37] Hajimolana SA, Hussain MA, Daud WMAW, Soroush M, Shamiri A. Mathematical
SOFC-GT-SORC combined system with performance simulation and parametric
modeling of solid oxide fuel cells: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:
optimization. Appl Therm Eng 2017;121:314–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1893–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.12.011.
applthermaleng.2017.04.066.

19
I. Tera et al.
[38] Perna A, Minutillo M, Jannelli E, Cigolotti V, Nam SW, Yoon KJ. Performance
assessment of a hybrid SOFC/MGT cogeneration power plant fed by syngas from a
biomass down-draft gasifier. Appl Energy 2018;227:80–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.077.
[39] Shin D, Kim T, Kang S. Design and performance analysis of a cascade solid oxide
fuel cell system for high electrical efficiency. Appl Therm Eng 2021;195:117214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117214.
[40] Dincer I, Colpan CO. Introduction to stationary fuel cells. Solid oxide fuel cells from
mater to syst. Model R Soc Chem 2013;1–25.
[41] Ding Y, Liu C, Zhang C, Xu X, Li Q, Mao L. Exergoenvironmental model of Organic
Rankine Cycle system including the manufacture and leakage of working fluid.
Energy 2018;145:52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.123.
[42] Zhang S, Li K, Zhu P, Dai M, Liu G. An efficient hydrogen production process using
solar thermo-electrochemical water-splitting cycle and its techno-economic
analyses and multi-objective optimization. Energy Convers Manag 2022;266:
115859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115859.
[43] Zeng R, Guo B, Zhang X, Li H, Zhang G. Study on thermodynamic performance of
SOFC-CCHP system integrating ORC and double-effect ARC. Energy Convers
Manag 2021;242:114326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114326.
[44] Fan G, Ahmadi A, Ehyaei MA, Das B. Energy, exergy, economic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of polygeneration system integrated gas cycle,
absorption chiller, and Copper-Chlorine thermochemical cycle to produce power,
cooling, and hydrogen. Energy 2021;222:120008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.120008.
[45] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy and energy analyses. Exergy. Elsevier; 2007. p. 23–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044529-8.50005-7.
[46] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic fundamentals. Exergy. Elsevier; 2007.
p. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044529-8.50004-5.
[47] Liu X, Yang X, Yu M, Zhang W, Wang Y, Cui P, et al. Energy, exergy, economic and
environmental (4E) analysis of an integrated process combining CO2 capture and
storage, an organic Rankine cycle and an absorption refrigeration cycle. Energy
Convers Manag 2020;210:112738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.112738.
[48] Yu M, Cui P, Wang Y, Liu Z, Zhu Z, Yang S. Advanced exergy and exergoeconomic
analysis of cascade absorption refrigeration system driven by low-grade waste heat.
ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2019;7:16843–57. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.9b04396.
[49] Morris DR, Szargut J. Standard chemical exergy of some elements and compounds
on the planet earth. Energy 1986;11:733–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442
(86)90013-7.
[50] Zhang X, Zeng R, Deng Q, Gu X, Liu H, He Y, et al. Energy, exergy and economic
analysis of biomass and geothermal energy based CCHP system integrated with
compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy Convers Manag 2019;199:111953.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111953.
[51] Mehrpooya M, Khalili M, Sharifzadeh MMM. Model development and energy and
exergy analysis of the biomass gasification process (Based on the various biomass
sources). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:869–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.04.076.
[52] Lee JS. Clarifying the terms of heating values. 2017.
[53] Ahmadi A, Jamali DH, Ehyaei MA, Assad MEH. Energy, exergy, economic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of gas and air bottoming cycles for production of
electricity and hydrogen with gas reformer. J Clean Prod 2020;259:120915.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120915.
[54] Towler G, Sinnott R. Principles, practice and economics of plant and process
design. Chem Eng Des Butterworth-Heinemann; December 10, 2007. p. 2008.
[55] Bellos E, Pavlovic S, Stefanovic V, Tzivanidis C, Nakomcic-Smaradgakis BB.
Parametric analysis and yearly performance of a trigeneration system driven by
solar-dish collectors. Int J Energy Res 2019;43:1534–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.4380.
[56] Burrin D, Roy S, Roskilly AP, Smallbone A. A combined heat and green hydrogen
(CHH) generator integrated with a heat network. Energy Convers Manag 2021;246:
114686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114686.
[57] Chen L, Xiao K, Hu F, Li Y. Performance evaluation and optimization design of
integrated energy system based on thermodynamic, exergoeconomic, and
exergoenvironmental analyses. Appl Energy 2022;326:119987. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119987.
[58] Zhang D, Hang P, Liu G. Recycle optimization of an ethylene oxide production
process based on the integration of heat exchanger network and reactor. J Clean
Prod 2020;275:122773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122773.
[59] Fang Z, Pan Z, Ma G, Yu J, Shang L, Zhang Z. Exergoeconomic,
exergoenvironmental analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel
combined cooling, heating and power system for liquefied natural gas cold energy
recovery. Energy 2023;269:126752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2023.126752.
[60] Jalili M, Chitsaz A, Holagh SG, Ziyaei M, Rosen MA. Syngas-fed membrane-based
and steam and water-fed electrolysis-based hydrogen production systems:
renewability, sustainability, environmental and economic analyses and
optimization. J Clean Prod 2021;326:129424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.129424.
[61] Liu L, Wu Y, Wang Y. Numerical investigation on the combustion and emission
characteristics of ammonia in a low-speed two-stroke marine engine. Fuel 2022;
314:122727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122727.
[62] Odum HT. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making.
1996.
[63] Jalili M, Chitsaz A, Ghazanfari Holagh S. Sustainability improvement in combined
electricity and freshwater generation systems via biomass: a comparative emergy
20
Energy 295 (2024) 131015
analysis and multi-objective optimization. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47:
2885–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.245.
[64] Herendeen RA. Energy analysis and EMERGY analysis—a comparison. Ecol Modell
2004;178:227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.12.017.
[65] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Assessing the global environmental sources driving the
geobiosphere: a revised emergy baseline. Ecol Modell 2016;339:126–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.017.
[66] Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Nikitin A, Norani M, Nikitina V, Hekmatshoar M, Shein V.
Comparison of two hybrid renewable energy systems for a residential building
based on sustainability assessment and emergy analysis. J Clean Prod 2022;379:
134592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134592.
[67] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity
production systems. J Clean Prod 2002;10:321–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0959-6526(01)00043-9.
[68] Mu H, Feng X, Chu KH. Calculation of emergy flows within complex chemical
production systems. Ecol Eng 2012;44:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2012.04.017.
[69] Andrić I, Jamali-Zghal N, Santarelli M, Lacarrière B, Le Corre O. Environmental
performance assessment of retrofitting existing coal fired power plants to co-firing
with biomass: carbon footprint and emergy approach. J Clean Prod 2015;103:
13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.019.
[70] Yang H, Li S. Emergy analysis of cassava vinasse treatment. Process Saf Environ
Prot 2013;91:503–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2013.01.003.
[71] Cao K, Feng X. The emergy analysis of multi-product systems. Process Saf Environ
Prot 2007;85:494–500. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep07007.
[72] Le Corre O. The fundamentals of emergy. Emergy. Elsevier; 2016. p. 1–35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78548-097-3.50001-9.
[73] Villarini M, Marcantonio V, Colantoni A, Bocci E. Sensitivity analysis of different
parameters on the performance of a CHP internal combustion engine system fed by
a biomass waste gasifier. Energies 2019;12:688. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en12040688.
[74] Cao H, Xiang D, Liu L, Liu M, Li P. Design, energy efficiency, and CO2 emissions
analysis of a power generation process of coking dry gas reforming coupled with
solid oxide fuel cell and organic Rankine cycle. Energy Convers Manag 2023;277:
116655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116655.
[75] Arslan M, Yılmaz C. Thermodynamic optimization and thermoeconomic evaluation
of afyon biogas plant assisted by organic rankine cycle for waste heat recovery.
Energy 2022;248:123487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123487.
[76] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, Wagner MJ. Thermodynamic study of advanced
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems.
J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4024030.
[77] Galloni E, Fontana G, Staccone S. Design and experimental analysis of a mini ORC
(organic Rankine cycle) power plant based on R245fa working fluid. Energy 2015;
90:768–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.07.104.
[78] Wu X, Shen Y, Zhao J, Wei H, Li W, Wang H, et al. Design and energy analysis of
solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine hybrid systems with membrane reactor. Int J
Green Energy 2022:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2022.2030343.
[79] Ruth M. Hydrogen production cost estimate using biomass gasification:
independent review. CO (United States): Golden; 2011. https://doi.org/10.2172/
1028523.
[80] Ramsden T, Steward D, Zuboy J. Analyzing the levelized cost of centralized and
distributed hydrogen production using the H2A production model. Golden, CO
(United States): National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL); 2009. version 2.
[81] Lieskovský M, Jankovský M, Trenčiansky M, Merganič J. Ash content vs. the
economics of using wood chips for energy: model based on data from central
europe. Bioresources 2017;12. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.1.1579-1592.
[82] Cheewaphongphan P, Junpen A, Kamnoet O, Garivait S. Study on the potential of
rice straws as a supplementary fuel in very small power plants in Thailand.
Energies 2018;11:270. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11020270.
[83] Caruso C, Catenacci G, Marchettini N, Principi I, Tiezzi E. Emergy based analysis of
Italian electricity production system. J Therm Anal Calorim 2001;66:265–72.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012412420744.
[84] Zhu L, Zhang Z, Fan J, Jiang P. Polygeneration of hydrogen and power based on
coal gasification integrated with a dual chemical looping process: thermodynamic
investigation. Comput Chem Eng 2016;84:302–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compchemeng.2015.09.010.
[85] Minutillo M, Perna A, Sorce A. Green hydrogen production plants via biogas steam
and autothermal reforming processes: energy and exergy analyses. Appl Energy
2020;277:115452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115452.
[86] Becker WL, Braun RJ, Penev M, Melaina M. Design and technoeconomic
performance analysis of a 1MW solid oxide fuel cell polygeneration system for
combined production of heat, hydrogen, and power. J Power Sources 2012;200:
34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.10.040.
[87] Wang B, Yu X, Chang J, Huang R, Li Z, Wang H. Techno-economic analysis and
optimization of a novel hybrid solar-wind-bioethanol hydrogen production system
via membrane reactor. Energy Convers Manag 2022;252:115088. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115088.
[88] Mehrabian MJ, Khoshgoftar Manesh MH. 4E, risk, diagnosis, and availability
evaluation for optimal design of a novel biomass-solar-wind driven polygeneration
system. Renew Energy 2023;219:119531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2023.119531.
[89] Sara HR, Enrico B, Mauro V, Andrea DC, Vincenzo N. Techno-economic analysis of
hydrogen production using biomass gasification -A small scale power plant study.
Energy Proc 2016;101:806–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.11.102.