Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Green hydrogen production from decarbonized biomass gasification: An

integrated techno-economic and environmental analysis
Calin-Cristian Cormos
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Babes-Bolyai University, Arany Janos 11, RO-400028, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

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

Keywords: Biomass gasification represents an effective and promising conversion technology to different energy carriers/
Biomass gasification chemicals. Biomass gasification with CO2 capture will give an energy conversion system with negative CO2
Hydrogen emissions. This work assesses the techno-economic and environmental implications of decarbonized green
Pre-combustion CO2 capture
hydrogen generation using the biomass gasification. Several pre-combustion decarbonization technologies were
Gas-liquid absorption
Membrane
evaluated: chemical and physical scrubbing (absorption), membrane, hybrid membrane - chemical scrubbing. All
Hybrid systems evaluated biomass gasification concepts have 300 MW hydrogen output (corresponding to 100,000 Nm3/h
hydrogen with purity above 99.95% vol.) with 90% carbon capture rate. Different system engineering tools were
employed for the integrated assessment. As an important novelty outcome of this work, the green hydrogen
production from decarbonized biomass gasification has promising potential to deliver high energy conversion
efficiency (in the range of 57–59%), lower energy and cost penalties for decarbonization (about 2.2–3.5 net
points), negative carbon emissions (considering that the primary fuel - biomass - is of renewable source). Among
various assessed decarbonization technologies, the membrane system shows better techno-economic perfor­
mances than the gas-liquid absorption (e.g., reduced CAPEX and OPEX by 7% and 7–9% respectively, inferior
hydrogen production cost by about 7% etc.).

production systems but as well other energy-intensive non-power pro­

cesses such as production of construction materials, metallurgy etc. [7,
1. Introduction 8]. The integration of renewables and CO2 capture & utilization systems
means overall negative carbon emissions for the whole energy conver­
The global concern regarding climate change and global warming sion process with positive global benefits in terms of removal CO2 from
requires decisive world-spread actions to diminish the anthropogenic atmosphere. To emphasize the importance of reducing CO2 emissions,
greenhouse gas emissions even if the world energy demand is still the decision makers have put in place relevant political, financial and
increasing [1,2]. A key element is represented by the future low carbon technical instruments. For instance, the European Union (EU) aims
economy which demands innovative and practical solutions to rise the through The Green Deal to become climate-neutral by 2050 fostering
contribution of renewables (biomass, solar, wind) in the global energy key elements such as boosting renewable energy sources, increasing
structure, implementation of new and cost-efficient energy trans­ energy efficiency, deploying various CCUS technologies etc. [9].
formation and storage systems together with introduction of new energy Regarding hydrogen production options, the partial oxidation sys­
carriers with lower carbon emissions [3]. Hydrogen is a favourable en­ tems (e.g., catalytic reforming, gasification) are particular important not
ergy carrier without CO2 emissions at the point of usage but up to now only as energy conversion systems but also as targeted implementations
hydrogen was produced mainly from fossil fuels (mostly natural gas) of innovative energy and cost-efficiency carbon capture and storage
with high fossil CO2 emissions (so-called grey hydrogen) [4]. Renewable (CCS) methods [10]. Conceptually, the CO2 capture can be done in
energy sources can be used for green hydrogen generation with low CO2 several ways: the post-combustion capture from gases generated from
emissions [5]. Beside energy-related applications, hydrogen is used in fuel combustion systems; the pre-combustion capture from syngas pro­
large quantities into various chemical processes (as reactant) as well as duced by partial oxidation systems and the oxy-combustion where an
in fertilizers production [6]. oxygen-rich atmosphere is used for total oxidation [11]. Each of these
Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) systems are key decarbonization strategies have their own advantages and
methods to efficiently decarbonize not only the heat and power

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126926
Received 21 November 2022; Received in revised form 6 February 2023; Accepted 8 February 2023
Available online 9 February 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Abbreviations LCOH Levelized cost of hydrogen

LHV Lower heating value
AGR Acid gas removal M Exponent in the capital cost calculation
ASU Air separation unit MDEA Methyl-Di-Ethanol-Amine
BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
CAPEX Capital expenditures MOFC Molten carbonate fuel cell
CB Reference capital cost NPV Net present value
CCC Cold composite curve Q Production capacity of evaluated plant
CCS Carbon capture and storage QB Production capacity of evaluated plant
CCUS Carbon capture, utilization and storage QBiomass Thermal input of biomass
CE Capital cost of evaluated equipment QDesorption column Thermal duty of CO2 desorption column
CEPCI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index O&M Operation & maintenance cost
CPU Carbon processing unit OPEX Operational expenditures
EU European Union PEM Proton exchange membrane fuel cell
FBiomass Mass flowrate of biomass as plant input PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption
FEmitted CO2 Mass flowrate of emitted CO2 SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
FHydrogen Mass flowrate of hydrogen as plant output SPECCA Specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided
GPU Gas permeation unit SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
HCC Hot composite curve TEG Tri-ethylene-glycol
IEA International Energy Agency WGS Water gas shift
IGCC Integrated gasification combined cycle Wnet Net power output

disadvantages. For instance, the post-combustion capture systems have scrubbing.

significant energy and cost penalties induced by low CO2 partial pres­ The CO2 separation using membranes got significant attention lately
sure of treated flue gas. The oxy-combustion systems have also increased as an energy and cost-efficient decarbonization system [20]. Since, most
energy and cost penalties due to the cryogenic Air Separation Unit (ASU) of the literature published studies are concentrated on post-combustion
required for oxygen production. The most important technical advan­ CO2 capture [21], this paper aims to expand the knowledge on
tage of pre-combustion systems is given by high CO2 partial pressure in techno-economic implications of pre-combustion capture. Therefore, as
the gas stream subject to capture which will finally translate into relevant novelty aspect of current work, the most relevant technical,
reduced energy and cost penalties for decarbonization [12]. Therefore, economic and environmental performance indexes (such as energy ef­
this work will focus on pre-combustion CO2 capture processes integrated ficiency, decarbonization rate, capital and operational costs, CO2 cap­
into a biomass gasification plant for green hydrogen production. ture costs etc.) of green hydrogen production based on decarbonized
Beside key techno-economic advantages of pre-combustion CO2 biomass gasification were investigated. The assessed designs have 300
capture systems in comparison to post- and oxy-combustion systems, the MW hydrogen thermal production capacity with 90% decarbonization
ability of partial oxidation technologies to produce not only conven­ yield. This plant capacity corresponds to 100,000 Nm3/h hydrogen with
tional energy carriers (e.g., heat and power) but also chemical com­ a purity above 99.95% vol. in accordance to the current large-scale
pounds which can play a double role as energy carrier and chemicals (e. hydrogen production units required in the chemical and
g., hydrogen, synthetic fuels) has to be further exploited to increase the petro-chemical applications [10]. To quantify the plant-wide energy and
global techno-economic performance indexes [13]. For instance, the economic penalties of assessed decarbonized systems, an analogous
gasification technology is very versatile to convert different solid fuels biomass gasification concept without carbon capture was also taken into
(for instance: coal, lignite, biomass and solid wastes) into a variety of consideration.
commercially and industrially valuable products. Also, the partial As H2-selective membrane for CO2 capture systems, two pre-
oxidation systems are prone to developing CO2 utilization technologies combustion configurations were evaluated: an only membrane system
in which synthetic fuels/chemicals can be produced. In addition, the which decarbonizes the shifted syngas and a hybrid membrane - ab­
time-flexible energy vector poly-generation capability of gasification sorption system where the membrane is situated at the top of absorber
processes represents a key feature in modern energy systems in which for recycling captured CO2 stream. As comparison (benchmark) gas-
the time-variability of solar and wind-based applications must be liquid absorption systems for decarbonization, both chemical (using
counter-balanced by suitable back-up facilities. Therefore, the devel­ Methyl-Di-Ethanol-Amine - MDEA) [22] and physical (using dimethyl
opment of flexible energy applications is mandatory for future energy ethers of polyethylene glycol - Selexol™) [23] systems were considered.
systems [14]. In term of key novelty aspects of present analysis, one can mention
This work evaluates the innovative high-purity hydrogen generation the utilization of a broad variety of system engineering tools (e.g.,
system using biomass gasification equipped with decarbonization conceptual design, modelling and simulation, model validation, thermal
capability. Usage of biomass (e.g., sawdust) as fuel for gasification will integration analysis, techno-economic and environmental evaluation)
ensure a neutral environmental balance and the coupling with CO2 for an integrated evaluation of green hydrogen generation based on
capture will give a negative CO2 emission system (Bioenergy with car­ biomass gasification with CO2 capture. In this respect, a comparative
bon capture and storage - BECCS) [15,16]. As decarbonization options, a techno-economic analysis of membrane-based decarbonization systems
broad selection of technologies was assessed e.g., the conventional was provided to highlights the main advantages of this technology in
chemical and physical scrubbing (mostly as benchmark since there are comparison to more mature chemical and physical scrubbing.
already commercial) [17], membrane [18] and hybrid membrane - ab­
sorption processes as innovative systems [19]. As relevant novelty 2. Designs of green hydrogen production by decarbonized
aspect, this analysis is quantifying the techno-economic advantages of biomass gasification
membrane-based decarbonization (stand alone or in a hybrid combi­
nation with chemical scrubbing) in contrast to chemical and physical Currently, most of the hydrogen produced globally uses the

2
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

hydrocarbon catalytic reforming in different design configurations (e.g., physical solvents can be done thermally (as for chemical ones) or pref­
conventional steam reforming, autothermal reforming using oxygen or erably by pressure reduction. The physical solvents have a lower CO2
air) [24]. The gasification process is another partial oxidation technol­ removal selectivity as the chemical ones. Therefore, some quantities of
ogy with promising potential to become a key process for hydrogen other gases (e.g., hydrogen, nitrogen, argon) are carried out with
production [25]. One distinct advantage of gasification in comparison to captured CO2 reducing its purity. Fig. 3 presents the conceptual layout of
reforming represents its ability to process a wide variety of solid feed­ CO2 removal in a pre-combustion capture arrangement in which the
stocks (fossil or renewable) not only hydrocarbons (most of them of pressure reduction was used for solvent regeneration followed by gas-
fossil origin) [10]. Through the gasification process, the fuel is partially liquid separation [12].
oxidized using steam and air/oxygen to syngas. Using an oxygen-blown Application of membrane separation in a pre-combustion decar­
gasifier, although implies an Air Separation Unit (ASU), it has positive bonization system is positively influenced by high pressure of shifted
effect on syngas quality and downstream purification issues. Following syngas (about 33–36 bar for a gasification system operated at 40 bar) as
gasification stage, the syngas is shifted catalytically to increase the separation driving force. As membrane separation unit, a two-stage
hydrogen production yield and to raise the CO2 partial pressure system using a hydrogen selective membrane was used [28]. Fig. 4
following its capture in an Acid Gas Removal (AGR) unit. In AGR unit, if presents the conceptual layout of pre-combustion CO2 removal using a
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is present in relevant levels, this acid gas is also membrane unit [19].
removed (separate from CO2) and sent to a Claus plant. The resulted A hybrid solvent - membrane systems was also evaluated to see the
hydrogen-rich stream is then set for purification in a Pressure Swing overall influence of the combined system on the heat duty for solvent
Adsorption (PSA) unit (if hydrogen is the final product) or used for regeneration as well as the power duty related to the membrane. The
various energy-related processes (e.g., gas turbine, fuel cells etc.). The best location of the membrane unit was considered to be at the top of
most common utilization of PSA tail gas is for the energy recovery (e.g., chemical scrubbing system (as presented in Fig. 5). In this way the key
power generation in a combined cycle) in order to contribute to the plant advantages of both systems (higher gas separation selectivity and
heat and power ancillary demand. The basic design of green hydrogen captured CO2 purity for the chemical scrubbing and the lower ancillary
generation using the biomass gasification system with CO2 capture energy consumption for the membrane) were used. In addition, it is
feature is exhibit in Fig. 1 [26]. expected that this configuration will decrease the thermal duty of
The CO2 capture from shifted syngas can be achieved in different desorption column. Fig. 5 presents the conceptual layout of pre-
options as presented below. The conventional process applied in various combustion CO2 removal arrangement done by a hybrid chemical sol­
applications is using chemical or physical scrubbing. The chemical gas- vent - membrane unit [19].
liquid absorption involves reactions between CO2 and solvent (e.g., The above presented CO2 capture technologies were integrated in a
alkanolamines, ammonia, inorganic hydroxides) Using MDEA as illus­ biomass gasification plant for green hydrogen production. All CO2
trative chemical solvent, the syngas decarbonization was based on the capture concepts have 90% decarbonization yield. In term of captured
following reversible process [27]: CO2 stream composition, the volumetric purity presented in relevant
literature reference [29] was used (>95% carbon dioxide, <1500 ppm
+
CO2(g) + MDEA(l) + H2 O(l) ↔ MDEAH(l) + HCO−3 (l) (1)
carbon monoxide, <300 ppm water, <50 ppm sulphur compounds and
The presence of a chemical reaction between CO2 and solvent posi­ <4% other non-condensable gases).
tively increases the selectivity of decarbonization process together with
the purity of captured CO2 flow. As a negative consequence, the solvent 3. Case studies, main design assumptions, thermal integration
regeneration (the reverse reaction to discharge CO2) has an important and model validation
thermal duty. Fig. 2 presents the conceptual layout of CO2 removal in a
pre-combustion capture arrangement in which the solvent regeneration The following case studies of decarbonized green hydrogen pro­
is done thermally [12]. duction using biomass gasification were evaluated.
In case of physical solvents, no chemical reactions with CO2 are Case 1. Biomass gasification plant without CO2 capture;
involved. In this case, the situation is reversed compared to chemical
absorption: the overall CO2 removal selectivity decreases but the heat Case 2. Decarbonized biomass gasification plant by chemical scrub­
requirements for solvent regeneration decrease also. The regeneration of bing (MDEA);
Case 3. Decarbonized biomass gasification plant by physical scrubbing
(Selexol™);
Case 4. Decarbonized biomass gasification plant by membrane
technology;
Case 5. Decarbonized biomass gasification plant by hybrid solvent -
membrane.
As evaluated gasification reactor, the Shell design (dry feed with
syngas quench) operated at 40 bar was used [27]. The main reasons to
select this gasification reactor are the following: (i) superior energy
conversion yield due to the merge of dry feed configuration (using ni­
trogen as pneumatic transport gas) with syngas quench design (capable
to generate high and medium steam from syngas cooling process); (ii)
clean syngas (free from pyrolysis products) due to high operational
temperature (>1400 ◦ C); (iii) high operational pressure (40 bar) which
is relevant for both CO2 capture and hydrogen production features; (iv)
significant industrial experience for processing various fuels (fossil,
biomass, wastes). Oxygen (to be produced by a cryogenic system)
together with steam (generated from available plant hot streams) were
considered as gasification reactants. As fuel, sawdust and residual wood
Fig. 1. Basic design of decarbonized green hydrogen generation using biomass
were considered based on the large availability as well as good
gasification.

3
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Fig. 2. Conceptual design of chemical scrubbing unit for CO2 removal.

Fig. 3. Conceptual design of physical scrubbing unit for CO2 removal.

hydrogen purification was also used. The most relevant design charac­
teristics are shown in Table 1.
The design assumptions mentioned in Table 1 were employed for
assessment of biomass-based gasification systems with CO2 capture for
green hydrogen production. As simulation software, ChemCAD [31] was
used based on its capability to handle modelling and simulation of
process systems present in the evaluated concepts (e.g., biomass char­
acterisation, gasification, syngas conditioning train, AGR for desulphu­
rization and decarbonization, hydrogen purification, heat recovery and
power generation). As used thermodynamic packages:
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) model was utilized for the majority of
process sub-systems (e.g., biomass gasification, syngas treatment line,
Fig. 4. Conceptual design of membrane unit for CO2 removal. hydrogen purification) due to the fact that this model is recommended
for appropriate characterisation of gaseous streams at moderate to high
combustion properties (high calorific value, low ash and sulphur con­ pressure levels; Electrolyte model was used for chemical gas-liquid ab­
tents). In addition, various other biomass residues (e.g., agricultural sorption (H2S and CO2 removal) due to the fact that it is recommended
wastes, sewage sludge, meat and bone meal etc.) can be used to provide for characterisation of aqueous solutions with ionic dissociation as
the required fuel input for decarbonized green hydrogen production present in the case of investigated chemical solvents and the TEG
with similar performances [30]. Dehydration model was used for carbon processing unit (CPU) due to the
All evaluated case studies were evaluated in a thermally integrated fact that this model is recommended for the moisture removal from
mode - the available hot sources within the plant were used for steam gaseous streams using tri-ethylene-glycol.
generation which then was used to cover the process requirements In view of optimization of energy efficiency, detailed thermal
(gasification, shift conversion, CO2 capture unit) as well as overall en­ assessment was done for all investigated concepts in order to find the
ergy ancillary consumptions. In addition, the tail gas resulted from best utilization of hot process streams (called hot sources) within the

4
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Fig. 5. Conceptual design of hybrid solvent - membrane unit for CO2 removal.

plant e.g., coupling to the cold process streams (called cold sinks) to
avoid utilization of external energy utilities and for steam generation - Hydrogen thermal output of the plant was calculated considering the
[32]. Since there are significant hot sources within the evaluated con­ hydrogen flowrate and its lower heating value (LHV):
cepts (e.g., raw syngas cooling, shift reactors, Claus plant), the pinch
Hydrogen thermal output = FHydrogen ⋅LHVHydrogen [MW] (3)
method was used as thermal integration tool to optimize overall energy
utilization [33]. Fig. 6 shows the thermal integration analysis in form of
composite curves (hot - HCC and cold - CCC) for gasifier, syngas pro­ - Net electrical efficiency was assessed considering the net power
cessing train and WGS conversion. output (Wnet ) and the biomass thermal input (QBiomass ):
In view of model validation, the main simulation results were
Wnet
benchmarked against either industrial data collected from relevant Net electrical efficiency = • 100 [%] (4)
FBiomass ⋅ LHVBiomass
literature sources [22,25], IGCC and AGR process licensors [23] or
IEAGHG reports [27] or against experimental data [34,35]. For each
relevant plant sub-system (e.g., gasification island, syngas treatment - Cumulative energy efficiency was determined taking into consider­
line, water gas shift conversion, AGR using various technologies, ation the hydrogen and electricity combined production and the
hydrogen purification unit etc.), the main performance indicators were biomass thermal input (QBiomass ):
analysed. For example, in case of biomass gasification unit, the fuel
FHydrogen ⋅ LHVHydrogen + Wnet
conversion yield, overall energy conversion efficiency defined as cold Cumulative efficiency = • 100 [%] (5)
FBiomass ⋅ LHVBiomass
gas efficiency, syngas characteristics (e.g. composition, pressure) were
assessed. For instance, in term of biomass conversion, the simulation
results give an average 99% yield in comparison to experimental values - CO2 capture rate was computed taking into consideration captured
of more than 98.5% [15]. The same can be observed for the WGS con­ CO2 molar flow (FCaptured CO2 ) and the molar from of carbon content in
version (98% vs. 97–99% [10]), CO2 capture rate (90% for both simu­ the biomass (FBiomass carbon ):
lation and experimental data as considered in mostly CCS projects [36, FCaptured CO2
37]), hydrogen purification yield (85% vs. 82–87% [27]) etc. As can be CO2 capture rate = • 100 [%] (6)
FBiomass carbon
noticed, no relevant differences were noted among the key results from
simulation and real plant (experimental) data.
- Plant specific CO2 emission was calculated taking into account the
4. Techno-economic assessment methodology and used mass flow of emitted CO2 (FEmitted CO2 ) reported to the combined
economic assumptions production of hydrogen and power:
[ ]
FEmitted CO2 kg
After modelling, simulation, model validation and thermal integra­ Specific CO2 emissions = (7)
FHydrogen ⋅ LHVHydrogen + Wnet MWh
tion of the investigated concepts, the main techno-economic perfor­
mance indexes were assessed using overall mass and energy balances.
The used performance indexes are fully in line to the current agreed - Specific solvent regeneration duty was assessed as the reboiler heat
methodology within the field (e.g., reports from International Energy duty of the desorption column reported to the mass flow of captured
Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) [36], National CO2:
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) [37] etc.). As for technical per­ [ ]
QDesorption column MJ
formance indexes, the next parameters were used. Solvent regeneration duty = (8)
Captured CO2 flowrate kg

- Biomass thermal input to the plant (QBiomass ) was calculated consid­

ering the biomass flowrate and its lower heating value (LHV): - Specific primary energy consumption for CO2 avoided (SPECCA) is
estimated using the cumulative energy (hydrogen and power)
Biomass thermal input = FBiomass ⋅LHVBiomass [MW] (2)

5
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Table 1
Key design characteristics of process sub-systems.
Biomass (sawdust) characteristics Mass composition (dried-based): 49.20%
carbon, 5.99% hydrogen, 0.82% nitrogen,
42.98% oxygen,
0.03% sulphur, 0.98% ash; Water content:
10%;
Inferior calorific value: 18.11 MJ/kg

Oxygen supply (cryogenic-based air Oxygen flow composition (vol. %): 95%
separation unit) [26] oxygen, 2% nitrogen, 3% argon
ASU electrical utilization: 200 kWh/ton O2
ASU oxygen delivery pressure: 2.4 bar
Biomass handling and transport [26] Milling energy consumption: 1% of thermal
input
Biomass transport to gasifier: 0.12 kg N2/kg
Gasifier unit [25] Shell gasifier
Oxygen to biomass mass ratio: 0.85
Steam to biomass mass ratio: 0.14
Gasifier operating parameters: 1425 ◦ C & 40
bar Fig. 6. Composite curves for gasifier, syngas processing line and
Gas cooling outlet temperature: 875 ◦ C WGS conversion.
Syngas water gas shift (WGS) Sulphur tolerant catalyst
conversion stage [27] 2 shift reactors operated in adiabatic mode
Steam to carbon monoxide molar ratio: 2
In respect to the economic indicators of the evaluated biomass-based
Conversion rate: >97% green hydrogen production concepts with decarbonization feature, the
Pressure reduction: 1.25 bar/catalytic bed following parameters were used.
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) unit - 50% wt. MDEA aqueous solution - Investment cost (CAPEX) of the evaluated green hydrogen pro­
Chemical gas-liquid absorption H2S removal rate: 98%
duction concepts was calculated considering the main plant components
[27] CO2 removal rate: 90%
Regeneration of solvent: thermal (LP steam) (e.g., biomass processing, oxygen supply unit, gasification island, syngas
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) unit Selexol™ process treatment line, acid gas removal, hydrogen purification, carbon pro­
-Physical gas-liquid absorption H2S removal rate: 98% cessing etc.). In these plant sub-systems, the capital cost (CE) for a
[23] CO2 removal rate: 90%
certain production capacity (Q) was assessed using the reference cost
Regeneration of solvent: pressure reduction
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) unit H2-selective membrane
data (reference investment costs - CB, reference sizes - QB and an
-Membrane [28] CO2 removal rate: 90% exponent - M) as shown in equation (10). Used reference data for CAPEX
Membrane permeance data: H2 - 300, CO2 - calculation (updated to the year 2022 using the Chemical Engineering
10, CO - 4, N2 - 2, Ar - 2, CH4 - 2, H2O - Plant Cost Index - CEPCI [39]) are presented in Table 2:
10,000
Pressure ratio: 5 - 10
( )M
Q
Carbon processing unit (CPU) for Moisture removal: Tri-ethylene-glycol (TEG) Capital cost (CE ) = CB • [€] (10)
CO2 conditioning [26] Delivery pressure: 120 bar
QB
Compressing unit efficiency: 85%
Composition (vol.): min. 95% carbon
dioxide, max. 2000 ppm carbon monoxide, - Specific CAPEX was computed as the investment cost (CAPEX) re­
max. 250 ppm water, max. 40 ppm sulphur ported to the combined production of hydrogen and power:
compounds, max. 4% other non-condensable [ € ]
gases (e.g., hydrogen, nitrogen etc.) Total investment cost
Specific CAPEX = (11)
Claus unit for sulphur removal [27] Oxygen-blown unit FHydrogen ⋅ LHVHydrogen + Wnet kW
Sulphur (H2S) content at plant inlet: min.
25% (vol.) -Operational & maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated considering
Hydrogen purification unit [27] Purity & pressure: min. 99.95% vol. & 60 bar both components: fixed and variable costs. The fixed cost covers main­
Compressing unit efficiency: 80% tenance, direct labour cost, administrative, support and overhead costs.
PSA tail gas integrated for energy recovery
Variable cost covers materials directly linked to production process (e.
Heat recovery and power block [26] Steam conditions: 560 ◦ C & 120 bar/200 ◦ C
& 3 bar g., biomass, catalysts, solvent, membrane, waste disposal, make-up
Efficiency of steam turbine: 85% water etc.). Key economic assumptions employed for O&M calculation
Steam final expansion: 0.045 bar are shown in Table 3.
Minimum temperature difference: ΔTmin. =
10 ◦ C
- Levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is assessed as ratio of annualized
CAPEX and O&M costs to the combined hydrogen and power pro­
duction as follow:
efficiencies and the plant CO2 emissions for the decarbonized and Annualized CAPEX + Operational & maintenence cost [ € ]
non-decarbonized concepts [38]: LCOH =
FHydrogen ⋅ LHVHydrogen + Wnet MWh
(12)

( )
3600 ⋅ 1
− 1 [ ]
MJ
(9)
Cumulative efficiencyCO2 capture Cumulative efficiencyNo capture
SPECCA =
Specific CO2 emissionsNo capture − Specific CO2 emissionsCO2 Capture kg

6
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Table 2
Economic reference data for CAPEX calculation.
Plant component Process parameter to scale Reference cost (M€) Reference size Exponent Reference

Biomass handling unit Biomass flow t/h 57.50 200.00 0.75 [26]
Cryogenic oxygen supply unit Oxygen flow t/h 168.18 225.00 0.75 [27]
Gasifier island Biomass flow t/h 307.80 270.00 0.80 [26]
Syngas treatment unit Biomass flow t/h 73.92 280.00 0.80 [26]
Decarbonization unit (MDEA) Captured CO2 flow t/h 10.78 14.00 0.60 [27]
Decarbonization unit (Selexol™) Captured CO2 flow t/h 122.00 550.00 0.70 [27]
Decarbonization unit (membrane) Membrane surface 106 m2 42.00 1.00 1.00 [19]
Syngas desulfurization Sulphur flow t/h 40.92 2.40 0.75 [27]
CO2 processing unit (CPU) Captured CO2 flow t/h 36.30 550.00 0.80 [26]
Hydrogen purification Hydrogen flow t/h 19.80 20.00 0.75 [27]
Heat recovery and power block Gross power output 264.00 500.00 0.75 [27]

Table 3 Table 4
Economic assumptions used for O&M cost estimation. Main technical and environmental performance indexes.
Biomass price 4.00 €/GJ (72.40 [40] Parameter U.M. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
€/t)
Biomass input t/h 117.50
MDEA price 4800.00 €/t [26] Biomass calorific MJ/ 18.11
Selexol™ price 6400.00 €/t [26] value kg
Boiler water price 0.15 €/t [21] Biomass thermal MWth 591.10
Cooling water price 0.01 €/t [21] input (A)
Cooling water treatment cost 0.003 €/m3 [21] PSA tail gas energy MWe 31.40 29.52 29.70 29.95 29.75
Boiler water treatment cost 95,000 €/month [21] recovery
Sulphur price 120.00 €/t [21] Steam turbine MWe 51.75 49.30 51.60 51.14 50.00
Cost for ash disposal 16.00 €/t [21] power output
Number of direct personnel 96 persons [26] Gross power output MWe 83.15 78.82 81.30 81.09 79.75
Average annual direct personnel cost 48.00 k€/person/y [26] (B)
Administrative costs 35% of labour cost [27] Ancillary MWe 25.20 41.25 38.95 36.10 39.21
Maintenance costs (percentage of annual capital 4.00% [27] consumption (C)
cost) Hydrogen output MWth 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00
Working capital 30 days’ supply [27] (D)
Plant operational factor 90% [27] Net power output MWe 57.95 37.57 42.35 44.99 40.54
Interest rate 8.00% [27] (E = B - C)
Captured CO2 transport and storage cost 15.00 €/t [26] H2 efficiency (D/ % 50.75 50.75 50.75 50.75 50.75
CO2 emission tax 0.00 €/t [41] A*100)
Plant erection time 3 years [27] Power efficiency % 9.80 6.35 7.16 7.61 6.85
Productive operational time 25 years [27] (E/A*100)
Cumulative energy % 60.55 57.10 57.91 58.36 57.60
efficiency
- CO2 removal and avoided costs were computed using levelized cost Decarbonization % 0.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
of hydrogen (LCOH), captured CO2 mass flow and specific CO2 rate
CO2 specific kg/ 530.10 60.05 59.21 58.77 59.52
emissions for both capture and non-capture concepts: emissions MWh
[€] Regeneration duty MJ/ – 0.58 – – 0.46
LCOHCapture − LCOHNo capture
CO2 removal cost = (13) (solvent) kg
Captured CO2 mass flow t Membrane power kWh/ – – – 47.36 20.25
consumption t
[€]
LCOHCO2 capture − LCOHNo capture SPECCA MJ/ – 0.76 0.57 0.47 0.64
CO2 avoided cost =
CO2 emissionNo capture − CO2 emissionCO2 capture t kg

(14)
Key economic assumptions employed in the evaluations of green the green hydrogen production based on biomass gasification implies an
hydrogen production based on biomass gasification are presented in energy penalty in form of a reduction of the cumulative energy effi­
Table 3. ciency compared to the benchmark non-capture case. The decarbon­
ization energy penalty is approximate 2.2–3.45 net percentage points.
5. Results and discussions of green hydrogen production from The smallest CO2 capture energy penalty is reported for the membrane
biomass gasification technology (Case 4) and the highest one for the chemical scrubbing
technology (Case 2). Physical scrubbing (Case 3) and hybrid absorption -
5.1. Technical and environmental performance indexes membrane (Case 5) decarbonization technologies show close energy
penalties with a plus for the physical absorption. All decarbonized
Overall mass & energy balances were utilized to quantify the most hydrogen production systems have a CO2 capture rate of 90%; the spe­
relevant plant performance indexes (as defined in section 4). Table 4 cific CO2 emissions are in the range of 58–60 kg/MWh reporting a sig­
shows the most significant technical indexes calculated for the assessed nificant reduction in comparison to the benchmark case (530 kg/MWh).
green hydrogen generation concepts via biomass gasification (both In addition, it worth mention that the decarbonized concepts have
decarbonized and non-capture cases). All concepts have the same negative CO2 emissions considering that the primary fuel (biomass) is of
biomass input (117.50 t/h equivalent to 591.10 MW thermal input) as renewable source. In these conditions, the benchmark concept without
well as the same hydrogen output (100,000 Nm3/h corresponding to CO2 capture (Case 1) can be considered to have zero fossil CO2 emission
300 MW thermal output). and the decarbonized concepts have negative CO2 emissions of about -
As shown in Table 4, the integration of decarbonization step within 470 kg/MWh. This is extremely relevant for the global efforts to reduce

7
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

CO2 concentrations from atmosphere [42].

As ancillary energy consumptions for CO2 capture exhibited by the
investigated decarbonization technologies, the SPECCA indicator has
the lowest value for the membrane system (Case 4). The chemical gas-
liquid absorption has the highest SPECCA value. The physical scrub­
bing and the hybrid absorption - membrane systems are showing in­
termediate values between these two extreme cases. As an overall
conclusion regarding the technical and environmental performance el­
ements, the green hydrogen production using decarbonized biomass
gasification shows great potential to contribute to the development of
low carbon economy [43] considering the high cumulative energy effi­
ciency of investigated concepts (about 57–59%), low energy penalty for
decarbonization coupled with significantly negative CO2 emissions to
reduce global warming [44].
Fig. 8. O&M costs for assessed green hydrogen production processes.
5.2. Economic performance indicators

Following the technical and environmental assessment of green Table 5

LCOH and CO2 capture costs for green hydrogen production processes.
hydrogen production based on biomass gasification with and without
CO2 capture feature, the main economic indicators were also evaluated Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
according to the methodology presented in section 4. For the capital cost LCOH, €/MWh 54.16 73.76 72.74 68.07 74.91
(CAPEX), the cost correlation method was employed using the reference CO2 removal cost, €/t – 34.43 32.63 24.43 36.45
costs (updated to year 2022 using CEPCI cost index) reported in Table 2. CO2 avoided cost, €/t – 41.69 39.45 29.51 44.10

For utilities and offsite units, the investment cost was assessed as 25%
form process investment [45]. The other costs (owner’s cost, contin­ hydrogen production based on biomass gasification by about 8–18%.
gencies, permitting, surveying etc.) were estimated as a 25% ratio from The lowest O&M costs are reported for membrane-only concept (Case 4).
total installed costs [46]. The specific CAPEX costs were calculated with The chemical scrubbing (either alone or the hybrid system with mem­
formula 11 and they are reported in Fig. 7 for all investigated cases. brane) shows the highest O&M costs mainly due to superior solvent
As shown, the decarbonization of green hydrogen production based costs. The physical scrubbing has lower O&M costs in contrast to
on biomass gasification induces a relevant increase of CAPEX costs chemical gas-liquid absorption system but higher than the membrane
compared to the benchmark case. The membrane decarbonization concept.
technology has the lowest CAPEX (about 1888 Euro/kW of hydrogen
and power) followed by the chemical and physical scrubbing which
show small differences between them (2035–2040 Euro/kW). The
hybrid absorption - membrane concept has the highest CAPEX (about
2130 Euro/kW). This can be explained by the fact that the bulk of CO2
removal is done by chemical scrubbing and additionally a membrane
unit was used.
The followed relevant economic performance index was the Opera­
tional & Maintenance (O&M) costs (OPEX). The main economic as­
sumptions used for O&M cost assessment were reported in Table 3. The
O&M costs for green hydrogen production systems with and without
CO2 capture feature are shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9. Sensitivity evaluation for levelized cost of hydrogen (Case 4).
The O&M costs are increasing with decarbonization of green

Fig. 7. Specific CAPEX costs for assessed green hydrogen production concepts.

8
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

Levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) and CO2 capture costs were

calculated with formulas 12 - 14 as presented in section 4 of the paper
according to the overall methodology within the field (e.g., Interna­
tional Energy Agency - IEA, National Energy Technology Laboratory -
NETL etc.). These key economic indexes for the green hydrogen gener­
ation using biomass gasification are presented in Table 5.
As observed from Table 5, the membrane technology applied in
biomass gasification exhibits the lowest levelized cost of hydrogen and
CO2 capture costs. Between chemical and physical scrubbing systems,
the physical absorption using Selexol™ technology has slightly lower
hydrogen production cost by about 1.4% [47]. The hybrid case has
highest hydrogen production and CO2 capture costs from all evaluated
concepts.
To evaluate how different cost components (e.g., CAPEX, biomass
cost, OPEX, interest rate, plant availability factor) influence the lev­
elized cost of hydrogen, the sensitivity analysis was done [48]. Fig. 9
Fig. 11. Influence of CO2 storage cost for assessed green hydrogen produc­
illustrate the sensitivity analysis done for one illustrative concept
tion concepts.
(biomass gasification with carbon capture based on membrane tech­
nology - Case 4) was selected for this purpose. As can be observed from
Fig. 9, the most important effect on levelized cost of hydrogen is noticed natural gas, methanol Fischer-Tropsch etc.) decarbonized energy car­
for CAPEX costs pursued by interest rate, plant availability factor and riers/chemicals [54]. The poly-generation feature has important tech­
fuel (biomass) price. The OPEX has the smallest influence on levelized nical and economic advantages (e.g., high cumulative energy efficiency,
cost of hydrogen (LCOH). base-load operation of core process units such as gasification and syngas
An important economic evaluation tool represents the cumulative treatment line with relevant operational benefits). Also, the
cash flow analysis for the overall project life [49]. In this analysis, the biomass-based green systems can act as back-up capacity for the
overall plant revenues (from green hydrogen, power etc.) as well as the time-intermittent green hydrogen production systems using renewable
overall costs were counted for the whole plant life. In this respect, the power (solar and wind) via water electrolysis [55]. Another key
plant life was considered as 29 years divided as follow: 3 years for plant advantage of biomass-based gasification is that the produced green
construction, 25 years for operation and one final year for decom­ hydrogen can be successfully integrated into fuel cell systems either for
missioning (when the working capital is to be recovered). Fig. 10 show mobile applications (PEM fuel cells) or for stationary applications (high
the cumulative cash flows of the green hydrogen production from temperature molten carbonate - MCFC and solid oxide - SOFC fuel cells)
investigated decarbonized biomass gasification plants. in view of heat and power co-production [56]. These green
Another important economic element in any CO2 capture project hydrogen-based mobile and stationary energy applications are predicted
represents the influence of CO2 transport and storage cost [50,51]. to play a crucial role in developing the future low-carbon economy [57].
Fig. 11 presents the influence of CO2 storage cost for the assessed green
hydrogen production concepts. It can be noticed a linear dependence of 6. Conclusions
hydrogen production cost vs. the CO2 storage cost. Also, the differences
among various decarbonized cases are maintained constant. The gap of The key novelty work of this analysis consists in an integrated
green hydrogen production cost between the benchmark case (without technical, economic and environmental assessment of various green
carbon capture) and decarbonized cases is widening with the increase of hydrogen production routes based on decarbonized biomass gasification
the CO2 storage cost. (as an illustrative example of BECCS systems). As decarbonization
The biomass-based gasification technologies such as conventional technologies, a wide range of pre-combustion methods were assessed:
process as evaluated in this paper or chemical looping-based processes conventional chemical and physical scrubbing (using MDEA and
[52] or catalyst and sorbent processes [53] are very promising for green Selexol™), membrane and hybrid membrane – absorption systems. All
hydrogen production. In addition, one key advantage of biomass-based evaluated concepts produce 300 MW hydrogen thermal output and
gasification represents the poly-generation capability of totally (e.g., variable electricity output depending on the available process heat
hydrogen, power) or partially (e.g., synthetic fuels such as substitute sources (hot streams). The CO2 capture rate of decarbonized concepts is
90%. Considering the renewable characteristic of the fuel used
(biomass), the benchmark concept without carbon capture can be
considered with zero fossil CO2 emissions and the decarbonized cases
have negative CO2 emissions. The BECCS technologies with negative
carbon emissions represent a promising option for the future in attempt
to remove CO2 from atmosphere and achieve the climate neutrality.
The main quantified techno-economic indicators (calculated based
on a detailed modelling and simulation, validation and thermal inte­
gration analysis) show that the membrane technology used for pre-
combustion CO2 removal has significantly better advantages in respect
to the conventional chemical/physical scrubbing and hybrid processes
as follow.

(i) Superior cumulative energy efficiency: approximate 1.26 net

percentage points in respect to the conventional chemical gas-
liquid absorption and approximate 0.45 net percentage points
in respect to the conventional physical scrubbing. The hybrid
system is just marginal more efficient than the chemical scrub­
Fig. 10. Cumulative cash flow analysis for assessed green hydrogen genera­
tion cases.
bing option (approximate 0.5 net percentage points);

9
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

(ii) Reduced specific CAPEX: approximate 7.3% in respect to the [3] Ang TZ, Salem M, Kamarol M, Das HS, Nazari MA, Prabaharan N. A comprehensive
study of renewable energy sources: classifications, challenges and suggestions.
conventional chemical and physical gas-liquid absorption con­
Energy Strategy Rev 2022;100939:43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cepts. The hybrid process has higher specific CAPEX by about esr.2022.100939.
13% than the membrane only concept (mainly due to the com­ [4] Hermesmann M, Müller TE. Green, turquoise, blue, or grey? Environmentally
bined investment cost of chemical absorption and membrane friendly hydrogen production in transforming energy systems. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2022;100996:90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.100996.
systems); [5] Zhou Y, Li R, Lv Z, Liu J, Zhou H, Xu C. Green hydrogen: a promising way to the
(iii) Reduced OPEX: approximate 9.6% in respect to the MDEA-based carbon-free society. Chin J Chem Eng 2022;43:2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemical gas-liquid absorption and about 6.7% in respect to the cjche.2022.02.001.
[6] Turan V, Aydın S, Sönmez O. Production, cost analysis, and marketing of
Selexol™ physical gas-liquid absorption. The hybrid case has bioorganic liquid fertilizers and plant nutrition enhancers. In: Amaresan N,
OPEX similar to the chemical scrubbing concept (mainly due to Dharumadurai D, Cundell DR, editors. Industrial microbiology based
the cost associated with the solvent); entrepreneurship. Springer Singapore; 2022. p. 193–8.
[7] Gür TM. Carbon dioxide emissions, capture, storage and utilization: review of
(iv) Reduced hydrogen production cost: approximate 7.7% and materials, processes and technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2022;100965:89.
respectively 6.4% compared to the conventional chemical and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2021.100965.
physical gas-liquid absorption. In contrast, the hybrid membrane [8] Chen S, Liu J, Zhang Q, Teng F, McLellan BC. A critical review on deployment
planning and risk analysis of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
- chemical scrubbing system shows the highest levelized cost of toward carbon neutrality. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;112537:167. https://
hydrogen (this can be explained by the higher CAPEX and OPEX doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112537.
costs are presented above); [9] European Commission. The European green deal. COM. Brussels: Belgium;
2019640 final. 2019.
(v) Reduced CO2 capture costs: down to approximate 34% compared
[10] Liu K, Song C, Subramani V. Hydrogen and syngas production and purification
to other assessed decarbonization concepts (conventional chem­ technologies. Hoboken, New Jersey: AIChE Wiley; 2010.
ical and physical scrubbing, hybrid absorption -membrane). [11] Tobias da Cruz T, Perrella Balestieri JA, de Toledo Silva JM, Vilanova MRN,
Oliveira OJ, Ávila I. Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and storage/
utilization: from current state to future research directions and opportunities. Int J
The integrated techno-economic assessment shown here underlines Greenh Gas Control 2021;103309:108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the key benefits of the membrane technology for an efficient pre- ijggc.2021.103309.
combustion decarbonization of green hydrogen production based on [12] Cormos CC. Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology with
carbon capture and storage (CCS). Energy 2012;42:434–45. https://doi.org/
biomass gasification in respect to the other CO2 capture technologies (e. 10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.025.
g., conventional physical and chemical gas-liquid absorption). In addi­ [13] Heinze C, May J, Peters J, Ströhle J, Epple B. Techno-economic assessment of
tion, the membrane-based CO2 removal technology applied in pre- polygeneration based on fluidized bed gasification. Fuel 2019;250:285–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.020.
combustion systems has a key advantage over the similar post- [14] Fernández-Guillamón A, Gómez-Lázaro E, Muljadi E, Molina-García A. Power
combustion membrane-based systems due to the high pressure of the systems with high renewable energy sources: a review of inertia and frequency
gas to be decarbonized (this technical element giving a positive driving control strategies over time. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;109369:115. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109369.
force for CO2 separation with positive techno-economic results). The [15] De Blasio C. Notions of biomass gasification. In: fundamentals of biofuels
hybrid chemical absorption - membrane system does not perform better engineering and technology. Switzerland: Springer Cham 2019:307–34.
that the conventional chemical scrubbing. [16] Zhou H, Park AHA. Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage via alkaline
thermal Treatment: production of high purity H2 from wet wheat straw grass with
CO2 capture. Appl Energy 2020;114675:264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Credit author statement apenergy.2020.114675.
[17] Borhan TN, Wang M. Role of solvents in CO2 capture processes: the review of
selection and design methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;109299:114.
Calin-Cristian Cormos: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Meth­ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109299.
odology; Investigation; Resources; Supervision; Software; Validation; [18] Sreedhar I, Vaidhiswaran R, Kamani BM, Venugopal A. Process and engineering
Visualization; Writing – original draft and Writing review & editing. trends in membrane based carbon capture. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68:
659–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.025.
[19] Cormos AM, Dragan S, Cormos CC. Integration of membrane technology for
Declaration of competing interest decarbonization of gasification power plants: a techno-economic and
environmental investigation. Appl Therm Eng 2022;118078:205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118078.
The author declares that he has no known competing financial in­ [20] Wu H, Li Q, Sheng M, Wang Z, Zhao S, Wang J, Mao S, Wang D, Guo B, Ye N,
terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Kang G, Li M, Cao Y. Membrane technology for CO2 capture: from pilot-scale
investigation of two-stage plant to actual system design. J Membr Sci 2021;
the work reported in this paper. 119137:624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119137.
[21] Asadi K, Kazempoor P. Techno-economic analysis of membrane-based processes for
Data availability flexible CO2 capturing from power plants. Energy Convers Manag 2021;114633:
246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114633.
[22] Kohl AL, Nielsen RB. Gas purification. fifth ed. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing
Data will be made available on request. Company; 1997.
[23] Honeywell - UOP. UOP SelexolTM technology for acid gas removal. 2022. https://
www.honeywell-uop.cn/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/UOP-Selexol-Technology-
Acknowledgments for-Acid-Gas-Removal-tech-presentation.pdf/ [accessed 3 October 2022].
[24] Sengodan S, Lan R, Humphreys J, Du D, Xu W, Wang H, Tao S. Advances in
The research leading to these results has received funding from the reforming and partial oxidation of hydrocarbons for hydrogen production and fuel
cell applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:761–80. https://doi.org/
NO Grants 2014 - 2021, under project contract no. 13/2020 and a grant 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.071.
of the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS/CCCDI - [25] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Gasification. second ed. Oxford: Elsevier Science, Gulf
UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-0632, within PNCDI Professional Publishing; 2008.
[26] Cormos AM, Cormos CC. Techno-economic assessment of combined hydrogen &
III.
power co-generation with carbon capture: the case of coal gasification. Appl Therm
Eng 2019;147:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.10.064.
References [27] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG).
Potential for improvement in gasification combined cycle power generation with
CO2 capture. Cheltenham, UK: Report PH4/19; 2003.
[1] Wu Y, Zhu Q, Zhu B. Comparisons of decoupling trends of global economic growth
[28] Giordano L, Gubis J, Bierman G, Kapteijn F. Conceptual design of membrane-based
and energy consumption between developed and developing countries. Energy Pol
pre-combustion CO2 capture process: role of permeance and selectivity on
2018;116:30–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.047.
performance and costs. J Membr Sci 2019;575:229–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[2] Zheng X, Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Mardani A, Cavallaro F, Liao H. A review of
memsci.2018.12.063.
greenhouse gas emission profiles, dynamics, and climate change mitigation efforts
across the key climate change players. J Clean Prod 2019;234:1113–33. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.140.

10
C.-C. Cormos Energy 270 (2023) 126926

[29] De Visser E, Hendriks C, Barrio M, Mølnvik MJ, Koeijer G, Liljemark S, Gallo YL. [45] Khallaghi N, Hanak DP, Manovic V. Techno-economic evaluation of near-zero CO2
Dynamis CO2 quality recommendations. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2008;2:478–84. emission gas-fired power generation technologies: a review. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.04.006. 2020;74:103095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103095.
[30] Cormos CC. Hydrogen and power co-generation based on coal and biomass/solid [46] Tola V, Pettinau A. Power generation plants with carbon capture and storage: a
wastes co-gasification with carbon capture and storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy techno-economic comparison between coal combustion and gasification
2012;37:5637–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.12.132. technologies. Appl Energy 2014;113:1461–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[31] Chemstations. ChemCAD - chemical process simulation. 2022 [accessed 7 October apenergy.2013.09.007.
2022], http://www.chemstations.net/. [47] Cormos CC, Dinca C. Techno-economic and environmental implications of
[32] Priya GSK, Bandyopadhyay S. Multi-objective pinch analysis for power system decarbonization process applied for Romanian fossil-based power generation
planning. Appl Energy 2017;202:335–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sector. Energy 2021;119734:220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119734.
apenergy.2017.05.137. [48] Pettinau A, Ferrara F, Tola V, Cau G. Techno-economic comparison between
[33] Smith R. Chemical process design and integration. second ed. Hoboken: Wiley; different technologies for CO2-free power generation from coal. Appl Energy 2017;
2016. 193:426–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.056.
[34] Porcu A, Xu Y, Mureddu M, Dessì F, Shahnam M, Rogers WA, Sastri BS, Pettinau A. [49] Turton R, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D, Whiting WB. Analysis, synthesis, and
Experimental validation of a multiphase flow model of a lab-scale fluidized-bed design of chemical processes. In: Pearson education inc. fifth ed. 2018.
gasification unit. Appl Energy 2021;116933:293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [50] Jakobsen J, Roussanaly S, Anantharaman R. A techno-economic case study of CO2
apenergy.2021.116933. capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway. J Clean Prod
[35] Han Y, Ho W. Polymeric membranes for CO2 separation and capture. J Membr Sci 2017;144:523–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.120.
2021;119244:628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119244. [51] Smith E, Morris J, Kheshgi H, Teletzke G, Herzog H, Paltsev S. The cost of CO2
[36] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG). Co- transport and storage in global integrated assessment modelling. Int J Greenh Gas
production of coal and electricity by coal gasification with CO2 capture - updated Con 2021;103367:109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103367.
economic analysis. Report 2008/9. UK: Cheltenham; 2008. [52] Zhao X, Zhou H, Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Park AA, Fennell PS, Shen L, Fan LS.
[37] U.S. Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Cost Biomass-based chemical looping technologies: the good, the bad and the future.
and performance baseline for fossil energy plantsume 1a. USA: Bituminous coal Energy Environ Sci 2017;10:1885–910. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EE03718F.
(PC) and natural gas to electricity; 2015. Report DOE/NETL-2015/1723. [53] Zhao M, Memon MZ, Ji G, Yang X, Vuppaladadiyam AK, Song Y, Raheem A, Li J,
[38] Van der Spek M, Roussanaly S, Rubin ES. Best practices and recent advances in CCS Wang W, Zhou H. Alkali metal bifunctional catalyst-sorbents enabled biomass
cost engineering and economic analysis. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2019;83:91–104. pyrolysis for enhanced hydrogen production. Renew Energy 2020;148:168–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.006.
[39] Chemical Engineering. Chemical engineering plant cost index (CEPCI). 2022 [54] Cormos AM, Dinca C, Cormos CC. Multi-fuel multi-product operation of IGCC
[accessed 17 October 2022], https://www.chemengonline.com/site/plant-cost power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Appl Therm Eng 2015;74:
-index/. 20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.12.080.
[40] Biomass cost/supply Europe. Tools for biomass chains. 2022 [accessed 20 October [55] Fan JF, Yu P, Li K, Xu M, Zhang X. A levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) comparison
2022], https://s2biom.wenr.wur.nl/web/guest/home. of coal-to-hydrogen with CCS and water electrolysis powered by renewable energy
[41] European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Emissions - EUETS. 2022 [accessed 1 in China. Energy 2022;123003:242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
November 2022], https://www.emissions-euets.com/carbon-market-glossary/97 energy.2021.123003.
6-biomass. [56] Mehr AS, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Rosen MA. Polygeneration systems based on high
[42] Cheng F, Small AA, Colosi LM. The levelized cost of negative CO2 emissions from temperature fuel cell (MCFC and SOFC) technology: system design, fuel types,
thermochemical conversion of biomass coupled with carbon capture and storage. modeling and analysis approaches. Energy 2021;120613:228. https://doi.org/
Energy Convers Manag 2021;114115:237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120613.
enconman.2021.114115. [57] Piacentino A, Duic N, Markovska N, Mathiesen BV, Guzović Z, Eveloy V, Lund H.
[43] Tezer Ö Karabağ N, Öngen A, Çolpan Cö Ayol A. Biomass gasification for Sustainable and cost-efficient energy supply and utilisation through innovative
sustainable energy production: a review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47: concepts and technologies at regional, urban and single-user scales. Energy 2019;
15419–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.158. 182:254–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.015.
[44] De Blasio C, Järvinen M. Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass. Encyclopedia
of Sustainable Technologies 2017:171–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
409548-9.10098-3.

11