Comparative Techno-Economic and

Exergetic Analysis of Circulating and

Dual Bed Biomass Gasification Systems
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 08 October 2021
doi: 10.3389/fceng.2021.727068

Comparative Techno-Economic and Exergetic

Analysis of Circulating and Dual Bed Biomass
Gasification Systems
Pablo Silva Ortiz1,2*, Simon Maier3, Ralph-Uwe Dietrich3, Adriano
Pinto Mariano1, Rubens Maciel Filho1 and John Posada2*
1
Laboratory of Optimization, Design, and Advanced Control, School of Chemical Engineering,
University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
2 Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, Netherlands
3 German Aerospace Center, Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics, Stuttgart, Germany

Edited by:
Daniel Florez-Orrego, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Reviewed by:
Reynaldo Palacios-Bereche, Federal University of ABC, Brazil
Karina Angelica Ojeda Delgado, University of Cartagena, Colombia
* Correspondence: Pablo Silva Ortiz, [email protected]; John Posada,
[email protected]
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Computational Methods in Chemical
Engineering, a section of the journal Frontiers in Chemical Engineering
Received: 18 June 2021
Accepted: 30 August 2021
Published: 08 October 2021
Citation: Silva Ortiz P, Maier S, Dietrich R-U, Pinto Mariano A, Maciel Filho R and Posada J
(2021) Comparative Techno-Economic and Exergetic Analysis of Circulating and Dual Bed
Biomass Gasification Systems. Front. Chem. Eng. 3:727068. doi: 10.3389/fceng.2021.727068
In this work, the techno-economic and exergy analyses of two gasification
technologies with integration into heat and power combined cycles are
presented: i). Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) and ii). Dual fluidized bed
(DFB) systems. As feedstock, lignocellulosic biomass (sugarcane bagasse,
SCB) was considered. The gasification process of the fluidized-bed systems
(circulating and dual bed) and the syngas conversion were performed using
Aspen Plus® software. The process design includes biomass drying and
gasification, syngas cleaning, combustion, power generation, and heat
recovery. The SCB-DFB system has the lowest irreversibility rate and, as a
result, the highest overall performance and power generation (achieving 32%
in the gasification system and 53% of exergy efficiency when coupled with
the combined cycle). From the techno-economic assessment, the SCB-DFB
system has the lowest total production costs per unit of energy. Hence, the
dual fluidized bed systems could be a more competitive technology for the
agro-industrial sector to generate power from lignocellulosic materials.

Keywords: lignocellulosic gasification, techno-economic analysis, exergy

analysis, process integration, gasification (biomass)

INTRODUCTION
Currently, the gasification process is one of the most studied thermochemical
pathways to disrupt the lignocellulosic biomass into molecules that produce
liquid fuels and power at low and high temperatures (Nogueira et al., 2011;
Miranda et al., 2021). Thus, based on the broad availability of processed
lignocellulosic biomass (i.e., sugarcane bagasse and straw) in the ethanol and
sugar industry, including other agro-industrial activities, it represents a useful
feedstock to be harnessed. In this context and searching for sustainable
bioenergy systems insights, there is growing attention to the simultaneous use
of lignocellulosic materials for the liquid biofuel production and power
generation.
Recently, several comprehensive reviews have been published on
biomass gasification involving the description of processes, trends, and
technological issues. Asadullah (2014) reports on the limitations of biomass
steps for the electricity generation. Furthermore, the author discusses the
effects of operational parameters in the supply chain management,
pretreatment, conversion, cleaning, and utilization steps using syngas for the
power generation. Damartzis and Zabaniotou (2011) present the
thermochemical conversion of biomass to second-generation biofuels and
indicate the emerging challenges and opportunities for process integration
schemes. Moreover, Gómez-Barea and Leckner (2010) analyzed the technical
aspects of the biomass gasification modeling in fluidized bed gasifiers (i.e.,
bubbling and circulating) and Hanchate et al. (2021) offer a holistic view on
the current research and developments of dual fluidized bed gasification
systems for the syngas production. Safarian et al., 2019 collect and analyze
statistics on the increasing number of gasification modeling studies and
techniques. An extensive technical literature review of model adjustments has
been carried out to offer a better understanding of gasification modeling for
future research. For instance, Silva et al. (2019) provide an updated review of
the stoichiometric thermodynamic equilibrium model for biomass
gasification applications. Also, Mehrpooya and Khalili, 2018 investigate 23
biomass sources through the modeling and simulation of biomass
gasification. The process operating performance was analyzed
thermodynamically based on the Gibbs free energy minimization and the
restricted equilibrium method. Rupesh et al. (2016) analyze the performance
of several biomasses during gasification through the energy and exergy
analysis. Thus, a quasi-equilibrium gasifier model was developed to simulate
and compare the feasibility of different biomass sources. Hence, it is noted
that the multi-reaction equilibrium approach is a standard method for a
gasifier modeling of biomass and coal sources as reported in the literature
(Worley and Yale 2012; Broer and Peterson 2019). For the particular case of
sugarcane bagasse gasification, a recent analysis has shown the syngas
evolution in terms of the global reaction mechanism, taking into account a
semi-batch reactor operated in a steady flow of high-temperature steam at
atmospheric pressure (Ahmed and Gupta 2012).
Studies focusing on the economic assessment of biomass gasification
have also recently been published (Esmaili et al., 2016; Ptasinski 2016;
Rahimi et al., 2020). For example, Rahimi et al. (2020) developed a
comprehensive software program to simulate biomass gasification, which
utilized an experimental setup to calibrate the simulation results with
appropriate modeling coefficients. Thus, the sensitivity analysis shows that
increasing the biomass moisture content will decrease carbon monoxide (CO)
and increase hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4) relative compositions in the
produced gas. The authors proposed a system that could save roughly
4 million Nm3 of natural gas per year, and the period of return of the project
investment report was 6 years. Shahabuddin et al. (2020) summarize the
recent techno-economic analyses for advanced configurations of the
thermochemical production of H2 from biomass and residual wastes. This
review finds that the thermal efficiency is near 50%. Also, the authors found
that the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) from biomass varies between 2.3
and 5.2 $Unites States dollar2020/kgH2 at raw material processing scales of
10 MWth to 2.8–3.4 $Unites States dollar2020/kg H2 at scales over 250
MWth.
Hence, a preliminary LCOH estimation from residual wastes is in the
range of 1.4–4.8 $Unites States dollar2020/kgH2, depending upon the
wastegate fee and project scale (Shahabuddin et al., 2020). Hannula (2016)
explores the potential to increase the biofuel output from a gasification-based
biorefinery using an external H2 supply. The author found that the biofuel
output could be increased by a factor of 2.6–3.1 for the gasoline (C8H18) or
methane (CH4) production over reference configurations, respectively. The
economic assessment shows that the average cost of low-carbon hydrogen
below 2.6–3.2 $Unites States dollar2016/kg H2 becomes economically
desirable over non-enhanced designs, depending on the process
configuration. The study analyzed the use of multiple available wastes and
residues in the European Union (EU;197 Mt/year, 2016) and its conversion to
biofuels, which could replace up to 41–63% of the EU’s road transport fuel
market in 2030, depending on the process design selected. AlNouss et al.
(2019) propose a poly-generation system that utilizes multiple feedstock
sources to produce high-quality urea, methanol, Fischer–Tropsch (FT)
liquids, and power to perform the economic, energy, and environmental
analyses. The results show that methanol (CH3OH) processing is the most
profitable process with a net profit of about 0.03 USD2019/kgCH3OH of
biomass input; when considering the production capacity, the liquid fuel
production achieves net profits, roughly about 0.27 USD2019/kg of product.
A techno-economic study of forest biomass blends gasification for small-
scale power production facilities in the Azores (Portugal) is presented by
Sousa Cardoso et al. (2020). Experimental gasification tests in a 250 kWth
quasi-industrial biomass gasifier in a pilot-scale fluidized bed reactor
validated the model. The results show the net present value (NPV), internal
rate of return (IRR), and payback period (PBP) followed by a sensitivity
analysis via Monte Carlo simulation for two distinct application sizes (100
and 1,000 kW). The 1,000 kW unit showed to be economically viable with an
NPV of 486 k€2020, IRR of 17.44%, and PBP of 7.4 years. Heinze et al.
(2019) carried out a techno-economic assessment of polygeneration based on
the fluidized bed gasification. A 350 MWe combined cycle power plant with
a dryer, a fluidized bed gasifier, a gas purification unit, a CO-Shift system,
and a Rectisol acid gas removal is shown in this process model. As a result,
the model is being used to investigate the specific CO2 emissions and
efficiency output for power and methanol production operation modes.
Weiland and White (2018) perform a techno-economic analysis of an
integrated gasification direct-fired supercritical (sCO2) power cycle via a
coal-fueled, oxy-fired direct sCO2 system, which is inherently amenable to
carbon capture and storage (CCS) processes. The conceptual designs
included a baseline sCO2 plant and an improved thermal integration between
the sCO2 cycle and the gasifier. The outcomes show a cost of electricity
(COE) of 137.3 $USD2018/MWh and 122.7 $USD 2018//MWh for the
baseline and thermally integrated sCO2 plants, respectively.
Recent developments on the valorization of biomass to value-added
commodities provide insights into the multidimensional drivers of
biorefinery-derived platforms. For instance, Molino et al. (2018) include an
overview of the technologies for converting biomass into syngas using
gasification techniques (i.e., fixed bed reactors, fluidized bed reactors, and
entrained flow reactors), the raw material characteristics, and the operating
parameters. Kim et al. (2020) propose an integrated biorefinery strategy for
coproducing liquid transportation fuels and high value-added chemicals from
lignocellulosic biofuels. Niu et al. (2021) also proposed a novel biomass
integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) configuration, which
featured an innovative two-stage enriched air gasification system coupling a
fluidized bed via the Aspen Plus model. On the other hand, Patuzzi et al.
(2021) compiled an extended set of data related to an overview of the
reference values for the ranges of operation of small-scale biomass
gasification systems available in the European market. Pregger et al. (2020)
give an overview of the Future Fuels project lead by the German Aerospace
Center (DLR) on producing and using synthetic fuels for electricity, space,
transportation, and aviation sectors. However, although the lignocellulosic
feedstock is considered to be accessible at a reduced cost, several
technological options for their conversion are still under development. Note
that the demonstration and commercial plants are still concentrated on power
generation even though today’s trend focuses on biofuels and high-value
products as given in technology readiness level (TRL) reports by the
International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA (International Renewable
Energy Agency, 2016), and the Delivering the United Kingdom’s Future
Energy Technologies (Energy Technologies Institute 2020), where Fischer–
Tropsch (FT), synthetic natural gas (SNG), circulating fluidized bed (CFB),
and bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) were identified as promising and viable
technologies.
It must be underlined that the gasification process is a significantly
flexible process regarding feedstocks (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) use,
particularly in tropical zones (e.g., Brazil), in which the biomass production
occurs throughout the entire season. Thus, these materials could be processed
either to produce biofuels or to cogenerate electricity and heat on demand.
Therefore, the flexibility aspects related to the gasification process (i.e.,
feedstock, conversion, and final use) options drive research and development
opportunities for thermochemical pathways. Hence, this work aims to analyze
and compare the technical, economic, and energy feasibility of two biomass
gasification systems for the power generation. In this context, a biomass
gasification model was developed to assess the technical, economic, and
energy feasibility for the power production. Moreover, a performance-based
comparison in terms of economic indicators (i.e., CAPEX, OPEX, and NPC)
and technical metrics (i.e., exergy efficiency and irreversibilities rate) of the
fluidized bed gasification technologies, also with the combined cycle
integrated is carried out. The comparative analysis of the lignocellulosic
biomass gasification systems using the exergy and techno-economic
assessment as metrics is relevant to support a diversification strategy for an
energy matrix development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, the choice of suitable raw materials capable of producing gaseous fuels
is presented (feedstock section). Next, the conversion technologies of the
fluidized bed gasifiers are introduced. Later, the models used for the techno-
economic analysis and the exergy assessment are provided.
Feedstock
The modeled thermochemical systems include agroforestry residues
feedstocks (Table 1) produced in Brazil. For instance, the Brazilian sugarcane
industry processed around 643 million tons of cane in the 2019/2020 season
(EPE 2019). Thus, after the extraction of the juice (sucrose) from sugarcane
stalks, the sugarcane bagasse (SCB) is obtained. On an average, one tonne of
crushed cane generates about 250 kg of bagasse (50% moisture). In this
context, data for the autonomous distillery with the processing of 4 million
tons of sugarcane (TC) per season were considered, which represent a typical
crushing capacity in the São Paulo State, Brazil. Thus, the biomass
gasification process simulation is explored and analyzed using the sugarcane
bagasse (SCB) available after cleaning and crushing the stalks, roughly 125
dry tonnes of biomass per hour.

TABLE 1 | Feedstock composition.

Conversion Technologies
In this work, a promising thermochemical pathway was considered in the
technological assessment. Fluidized bed gasifiers are known for their
temperature consistency, larger efficiency, and performance mixing. Thus,
two fluidized bed types were evaluated, circulating and dual bed systems.
Essentially, the fluidized bed technology comprises granular solids (bed
materials) that are kept semi-suspended (fluidized condition) by injecting the
gasifying medium through the solid particles. This type of gasifier is
relatively insensitive to the quality of the fuel due to its excellent gas–solid
mixing and large thermal inertia of the fluidized bed (Basu 2018). The
temperature uniformity around this gasifier significantly decreases the
possibility of fuel agglomeration. This design has proven to be beneficial for
the biomass gasification. It produces tar at a rate comparable to updraft
configurations, roughly 50 g/Nm3 (Basu 2018).
 Fluidized bed systems are known to achieve higher efficiencies when
compared to other types of gasifiers. Nevertheless, they are still an immature
technology for the electricity generation due to high capital and operational
costs, as well as maintenance costs and expensive control systems, which
limits their development (Anukam et al., 2016). Facing these challenges,
detailed simulation models were carried out to determine the technical
performance and economic assessment of these fluidized bed systems (CFB
model and DFB model) based on a study by Nikoo and Mahinpey (2008),
Camacho-ardila et al., 2012, and Medeiros et al. (2017). The synthesis of the
performance conditions of the gasification processes can be found in
Supplementary Tables S1, S2 (Supplemental material, SM).

Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB Model)

Figure 1 shows the atmospheric circulating fluidized bed system integrated
with the combined cycle. The first phase is related to the feed handling and
preparation, and the modeled biomass feedstock has an ultimate and
proximate analysis shown in Table 1. In this stage, a directly heated single-
pass rotary dryer is included in the system to deal with the moisture content
of the raw material. It allows hot gases to be in contact with the biomass
material inside a rotating drum before feeding into the decomposition reactor.
Next, biomass decomposition occurs, which involves a yield reactor
converting biomass into its constituent components such as carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine, and ash. Later, the resulting stream (Ryield
block and decomposition) goes through a combustion zone (bed); at this
point, the pyrolysis is followed by the gasification process (gasification
zone). The gasifying agent (air) is delivered at the next stage (char
gasification) to ensure optimal gasification operational conditions. Besides,
both the remaining carbon fraction and ash make up the char particles
produced by the devolatilization process. Furthermore, at the riser outlet, the
cyclone model (cyclone unit) reflects the gas/solid separation stage. All of the
gases from the Gibbs reactor make up the top outlet flow (syngas). Last, the
output from the ashes is represented by the bottom outlet solid stream (ash).
 FIGURE 1 | Circulating fluidized bed model.

The assumptions adopted during the gasification process simulation were

i) steady-state and isothermal conditions; ii) the devolatilization step is
considered instantaneous and occurs at the bottom of the bed (very short time
required for volatile combustion); iii) char and volatiles are formed in the
pyrolysis stage. Non-condensable volatiles (e.g., H2, CO, CO2, CH4, and
C2H2), condensable volatiles (tar), and water are among the volatiles
considered (Gómez-Barea and Leckner 2010); and iv) only carbon and ash
are found in char (Nikoo and Mahinpey 2008).

Dual Fluidized Bed (DFB Model)

The dual fluidized bed was modeled as indicated in Figure 2. The model
includes processing and drying of biomass feed, indirect heating gasification
in a dual-circulating fluidized bed, and cyclone removal of particles. This
type of gasifier consists of two independent and interconnected beds through
which the hot bed material circulates and transfers heat between different
regions. In the gasification zone (RGibbs model), steam is used as the only
gasification agent. In contrast, in the combustion zone (RStoic model), air is
bubbled as a combustion agent. Thus, a high-quality syngas can be produced
with a higher H2 concentration (Corella et al., 2007).
 FIGURE 2 | Dual fluidized bed model.

Since nonconventional components are excluded from the phase and

chemical equilibrium calculations, a decomposition block (RYield reactor)
breaks down biomass into its constituent elements (C, H2, O2, N2, Cl, S, and
H2O), allowing the subsequent stages. Later, preheated air at 130°C is
supplied into the combustion zone, where char is burned to supply heat for
the endothermic process.
The separator, on the other hand, denotes the separation of the char
fraction utilized for combustion. At 2.5 bar (130°C), the gasification zone is
supplied with biomass and saturated steam, which works as a gasifying agent.
The steam-to-biomass (STB ratio) adopted was 0.34 with lower value
preference (typical STB range between 0.2 and 2) as a consequence of lower
energy consumption (Silva and Rouboa, 2014). The gasification and the
combustion zone temperatures were 950°C and 1,000°C, respectively, which
is consistent with their operating parameters (Worley and Yale 2012; Broer
and Peterson 2019). Afterward, the gas passes by a cyclone to remove
particulates. It is emphasized that the dual gasifier model assumes a multi-
reaction equilibrium approach.

Combined Cycle
The combined cycle comprises a gas turbine that simulates a Brayton cycle
and a steam turbine following a conventional Rankine cycle. The simulation
was carried out focusing on the following assumptions: i). Steady-state
operation; ii). isentropic compression process, and iii). No heat losses in the
combustion chamber. It is essential to mention that the process flowsheets of
the gasification system integrated with the combined cycle are given in
Figures 1, 2, respectively. The inlet stream in the combined cycle is the
cleaned synthetic gas (syngas) produced in the gasification process after
being passed by the MC-SNG compressor; this equipment represents a
multistage compression (centrifugal-rotary) with intercooling stages at 40°C
and condensation flash drums. On the other hand, the mass flow rate of air is
set to obtain a total outlet flow rate and compressed according to the specified
pressure ratio of 20 bar. Thus, the mass flow rate of the air inlet to the gas
turbine is calculated to achieve an exiting temperature of 1,350°C in the
outlet stream. A design spec was used to vary the oxygen inlet until the
combustion is complete. After compression, the air is led into the combustion
chamber of the gas turbine (RStoic block). By combusting the syngas, the flue
gas, together with the excess air stream is heated up to 1,350°C before
entering the gas turbine (GT). The GT operates with an outlet pressure of
1.1 bar and an isentropic efficiency of 88%.
Next, the outlet gases from the GT enter into the heat recovery steam
generator (HRSG) section, in which it exchanges heat with a steam cycle.
The steam cycle consists of one high-pressure steam turbine (ST) and one
medium- to low-pressure steam turbine. The steam enters the high-pressure
steam turbine at 200 bar and 550°C and exits at 50 bar. After an intermediate
superheating step, the steam is led into the second ST and expands until a
pressure of 0.05 bar and a condensate fraction of 5%. A heat exchanger is
utilized to condense the water that is recirculated. The synthesis of the
parameters adopted in the combined cycle can be seen in Supplementary
Tables S3, S4. More details of the technical performance of gas turbines
using a low heating value fuel can be found elsewhere (Silva et al., 2013;
Zornek et al., 2015).

Heat Integration
The heat integration was performed according to the pinch point analysis.
The flue gas stream of the gas turbine is primarily used to generate steam for
the steam turbines, while part of it is preheating the required steam and air
streams that lead into the gasifier. Additionally, a part of the flue gas is used
in a drying unit. In the case of the DFB gasification concept, the flue gas exits
the last heat exchanger within the combined cycle loop at 291°C. Its
remaining sensible heat is utilized as follows: 3.2 MWth is used for air
preheating while 14.8 MWth is utilized for the gasification steam generation.
Finally, the drying unit consumes 36.1 MWth to reduce the moisture content
from 50 to 10 wt.%. To prevent condensation, the flue gas exits the drying
unit at 65°C. The intercooling stages in between the syngas compression
provide in the case of DFB gasification a low-temperature heat of 7.5 MWth
which is used to preheat the water of the combined cycle loop from 21 to
72°C.
Due to the much higher volume flow in the CFB gasification system, the
heat integration concept is slightly modified. The syngas compression step
requires 17.0 MWth of cooling between 175 and 40°C, which cannot be fully
provided by the combined cycle water which is thereby heated from 21 to
150°C (12.9 MWth). The available intercooling heat is also used to preheat
the air for the gasification (2.1 MWth), as well as to increase the water
temperature for gasification from 20 to 105°C (2.0 MWth). The flue gas
stream exits the last heat exchanger of the combined cycle at 326°C even
though some of the required heat for air and steam preparation can be
provided by the intercooling sections. Exchanging the remaining 12.8 MWth
of heat to generate the steam for the gasifier, the flue gas enters the drying
unit at 266°C and exits it at 70°C due to its higher partial pressure water.

Techno-Economic Evaluation
The TEPET (Techno-Economic Process Evaluation Tool) methodology was
used for estimating capital investment costs or capital expenditures
(CAPEX), operational expenditures (OPEX), and net production costs (NPC).
The cost estimation is expected to have an accuracy of ±30% for well-known
chemical processes (Albrecht et al., 2017), according to classes three and four
of the classification system of the Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE International, 2011).
Fixed capital investment (FCI), which includes equipment costs (EC) and
additional capital requirements throughout the building phase, is included in
CAPEX. TEPET is used to determine EC for all installed units based mainly
on Peters et al. (2003). Besides, the TEPET was used to create a database
with cost functions for chemical processes and fuel synthesis equipment.
On the other hand, the OPEX could be broken down into costs for
feedstocks and utilities and additional indirect operational costs (e.g.,
maintenance, labor, insurances, administration, and taxes). Due to the
difficulty of predicting exact prices, conventional estimates based on
historical data from the chemical process sector are employed (Peters et al.,
2003).
The TEPET methodology description is given in a study by Albrecht et
al. (2017). The equipment costs correlations used and the expression to
calculate the new sized equipment are displayed in Materials and Methods-
SI. In this study, an operating time of the plant of 20 years, an interest rate of
7%, and an annual full load of 8,000 h were considered. Another aspect to be
highlighted in the techno-economic analysis is the raw material logistic (i.e.,
availability, transportation, cost production, and storage). In this context,
Brazil is characterized by seasonal availability and low-cost biomass. Hence,
a representative market price for the season 2018–2019 was used,
corresponding to 25 €/t biomass (Watanabe et al., 2020).

Exergy Assessment
The value and usefulness of resources are related to their capacity to do
useful work. The second law of thermodynamics accounts for the fact, even
though under ideal conditions, heat cannot be entirely converted into work.
Thus, the concept of exergy represents the maximum ability of a system to do
work concerning a reference state (Bakshi, 2019). The technological
scenarios are based on the calculation of the steady-state mass, energy, and
exergy balances, according to Eqs 1–3, respectively, for each one of the
control volumes.

where represents the exergy of the process inputs ( ),

the exergy of the process output ( ), and the irreversibility (exergy
losses). In this work, the chemical (bCH) and physical (bPH) exergies are
measured due to the physicochemical processes involved. Thus, bPH was
determined according to Eq. 4.
where H (in kW) is the enthalpy flow rate at P and T; S (in kW/K) denotes
the entropy rate/flow rate at P and T; To (in K) is the temperature at the
reference state; Ho (in kW) represents the enthalpy flow rate at Po and To;
and So (in kW/K) is the entropy rate evaluated at Po and To. In particular, the
most significant contribution of natural resources, including lignocellulosic
biomass, are included in the bCH term (chemical exergy value) (Ofori-
Boateng, 2013). Conceptually, it estimates the value of a chemical substance
in comparison to a predetermined reference environment (Marais et al.,
2017). Eq. 5 defines the chemical exergy for a mixture:

where nmix is the total amount of moles of all constituents in a mixture and xi
is the mole fraction of component i. The influence of Ὑ was evaluated for
each compound, thereby allowing the observation that it offers values close
to 1 (as given in S6). Consequently, Ὑ was assumed to be equal to 1, an ideal
solution, in mixtures for the bCH calculation (Silva Ortiz and de Oliveira,
2014). The term denoted the standard chemical exergy. The chemical
exergies for conventional compounds are found in the Szargut et al., 1988
and Kotas (1985). The correlation related to the bCH calculations of the
nonconventional components is given in Supplementary Equation S6.
Furthermore, the expressions to calculate the lower heating value (LHV) and
the higher heating value (HHV) are presented in abbreviations-SM.

Performance Analysis of the Systems

A set of complementary performance indicators were selected for the
thermochemical pathways based on the thermodynamic and techno-economic
assessment. These metrics are suitable for system comparisons and
identification of promising alternatives focus on the process integration of the
configurations. Initially, the exergy efficiency and irreversibility rate were
used as indexes to assess the technical performance of the plants. Meanwhile,
key financial indicators were adopted to evaluate the techno-economic
parameters (i.e., the fixed capital investment-FCI, the total capital
investment-TCI, capital expense-CAPEX, operating expense-OPEX, and net
production costs-NPC), as shown in Techno-economic analysis.
Exergy efficiency: It was determined by the ratio between the exergy of
the products and the exergy of the resources, as given in Eq. 6.

Irreversibility rate: The irreversibility metric was obtained by applying

the exergy balance expression introduced in Eq. 3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Simulation Analysis
Initially, Table 2 presents the selected parameters of the biomass and syngas
composition for each configuration. These data were used to determine the
global performance assessment of the systems. In general, the content of
hydrocarbons in the syngas composition, such as methane was minimum,
which may be related to the full cracking reaction under high-temperature
conditions (Table. 2). This tendency matched the experimental results for
fluidized bed gasifiers published by Molino et al. (2018) and Camacho-
ardila., et al. (2012) for a pilot-scale simple and two-stage enriched air
gasification process.

TABLE 2 | Comparison results of selected parameters.

The results of the combined cycle can be compared with various previous
studies. For example, Emun et al. (2010) analyzed different operation
strategies of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant and
obtained an exergy efficiency of η = 45%. Liu and Karimi (2018) reported
the efficiency in the combined cycle of 56.3% using natural gas as a fuel. In
the SCB-DFB system, an exergy efficiency of η = 54% was achieved within
the combined cycle section. The synthesis of the results obtained in the
combined cycle performance is given in Supplementary Table S4.

Techno-Economic Analysis
Figure 3 shows the total production costs estimated for each configuration.
These graphical representations indicated the cost contribution of the
electricity generation in all scenarios by each process step. For instance, the
annualized capital cost represented the highest participation in the production
costs. This term was calculated using the relation between the annuity factor,
the fixed capital investment (FCI), the total capital investment (TCI), and the
interest rate, as indicated in a study by Albrecht et al. (2017), using 2019 as
the year of reference in the analysis. Figures 3A,B present the techno-
economic outcomes concerning the dual fluidized bed (DFB) and the
circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) using sugarcane bagasse as a feedstock
integrated into the combined cycle, respectively.

FIGURE 3 | Total production costs of the systems.

In addition, Table 3 displays the economic analysis results for each

configuration obtained through the TEPET (Techno-Economic Process
Evaluation Tool) evaluation. Thus, a breakdown of the investment and
operational costs is given to determine the global behavior of the system in
light of the techno-economic feasibility assessment. It must be underlined
that the TCI term represents the CAPEX (capital expenditures) of the
thermochemical routes. Besides, OPEX and NPC are specified in this table.

TABLE 3 | Techno-economic assessment evaluation.

According to Table 3, the SCB-CFB model represents the higher total

cost of investment when compared to the dual fluidized bed systems, which is
associated with the equipment costs and fixed capital investment. It is
emphasized that the specific net production cost of the SCB-CFB system was
the highest. In contrast, the SCB-DFB model presents the most attractive
product output per year among the integrated gasification combined cycle.
In light of these results, the Lang factor was considered individually for
each system to reflect the other costs contribution to plant cost. Lang factor is
defined as the ratio of total capital investment (TCI) to delivered-to-site
equipment cost (EC), given in Table 3. For all the systems, the Lang Factor
was calculated (SCB-DFB 2.7 and SCB-CFB 3.0), which is a typical value
for mixed fluids–solids processing plants (Peters et al., 2003). For instance,
the Lang Factor for the production costs of syngas from lignocellulosic
biomass in Brazil was determined as 3.8 through a biomass supply
configuration focus on bulk chemicals (Benalcázar et al., 2017).
Moreover, the payback period, which denotes the amount of time it takes
to recover the investment cost, was determined for each system (SCB-DFB
5.4 and SCB-CFB 7.6 years, respectively). The results show that the SCB-
DFB model offers a shorter payback period. Thus, this configuration could
represent the more attractive investment under this indicator and also could
represent a lower risk of the project. Furthermore, the specific net production
cost of the electricity via dual fluidized bed systems (SCB-DFB, 0.09
€2019/kWh and SCB-CFB, 0.12 €2019/kWh) could be competitive within
the Brazilian market (Figure 4), and when compared with the coal power
plants (0.16 €2019/kWh) and nuclear systems (0.25 €2019/kWh) (EPE,
2019).

FIGURE 4 | NPC Breakdown of the system configurations.

Performance Assessment
To synthesize the impact of the coupled systems (gasification and power
generation) in terms of the performance indicators
In general, the heating value (LHV and HHV) of syngas is a function of
the equivalence ratio and their chemical composition (Table 2). Thus, the
gasification section is a crucial issue related to optimizing the global biomass
integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC) performance based on the
process integration strategy adopted.
Accordingly, the SCB-DFB model (dual fluidized bed using bagasse)
shows a higher exergetic efficiency as a consequence of the lower
irreversibilities of the overall systems, when compared with the models
integrated with the gasification process and the combined cycle (Figure 5).
Hence, the SCB-DFB model represents the best operating conditions to
maximize the exergy efficiency of this system by maximizing heat recovery.
In general, the key factors concerning the thermodynamic optimization of the
systems are focused on setting the optimal performance conditions, such as
the excess air fraction that exists in the combustion, the air inlet temperature,
the air–fuel ratio, and preheating the combustion air. Last, the main stream
parameters of the CFB and DFB processes are specified in Table 4.
 FIGURE 5 | System performance of the thermochemical routes.

TABLE 4 | Key stream parameters.

Sensitivity Analysis
The impact of the operation time on the specific net production costs (NPC,
€/kWh) was explored in Figure 6 taking into account the full load hours per
year for each system. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis for the best
configuration ranking based on the economic and exergy results and the
effects of varying the compressor pressure ratio for the SCB-DFB case is
given in References-SM (Supplementary Figure S3 and Supplementary Table
S9).
 FIGURE 6 | Effect of the operation time on the specific net production costs.

In addition, the exergy flows associated with each process configuration

(gasification system and combined cycle) are presented in Grassmann
diagrams (Supplementary Figures S1, S2 in the Supplementary Material).
Last, the energy potential of the syngas conversion to synthetic fuels via the
FT synthesis was determined to analyze and compare this process alternative
with other promising technological pathways reported by Albrecht et al.
(2017). This comparison did not ignore the fact that the H2/CO ratio in the
syngas in the present study is lower than that in the referred study.
Furthermore, Albrecht et al. (2017) considered that the overall hydrogen
conversion was 90%, and the CO conversion was calculated accordingly.
Since 25 wt.% of the FT products leave the reactor in the gaseous state, the
energy losses (difference between the energy of syngas and energy of FT
products) were 102 MW (SCB-DFB) and 56 MW (SCB-CFB). These energy
losses represent an increase in terms of energy content related to the power
output of each configuration of 11% (SCB-DFB) and 32% (SCB-CFB).

CONCLUSION
The case study demonstrated the potential of the sugarcane bagasse (SCB) in
Brazil to be used as a feedstock in thermochemical conversion systems for
energy generation. Since the Brazilian sugarcane industry generates large
amounts of SCB during the crop season. Among the thermochemical
systems, the fluidized bed gasifier was selected as a conversion technology. It
represents a promising system proven to be beneficial for biomass
gasification at achieving higher efficiencies. However, it is still under
development. In this sense, the techno-economic assessment of the
gasification systems coupled with a combined cycle shows that the dual
fluidized bed configuration has the lowest total cost of investment (TCI) in
comparison with the circulating model. Indeed, the lignocellulosic biomass
gasification through the SCB-DFB model has a reduction of 15% of the
CAPEX compared to the SCB-CFB system. Hence, the SCB-DFB model
presents a competitive advantage since the former provides more product
output (NPC) per year. Besides, this investment cost could be viable in the
Brazilian market compared with typical NPC values for conventional power
systems (i.e., coal and nuclear plants). These favorable conditions were
obtained via heat integration, which allowed savings in net productions costs
related to steam consumption (i.e., process integration between the gasifier
unit and the combined cycle).
From the exergetic analysis point of view, the SCB-DFB model shows
that the sugarcane bagasse offers a promising configuration since it reported
the lowest exergy destruction rate; as a consequence, the highest exergy
efficiency of the overall systems of all integrated gasification systems and
power generation scenarios investigated. In this regard, it is noted that a
sensitivity analysis focused on exploring the effect of the operation time on
the specific production costs was carried out for each system. In addition, a
sensitivity analysis for the SCB-DFB case changing the compressor pressure
ratio in the combined cycle section and varying the key variables related to
the feedstock price and equipment assumptions adopted in the NPC
calculation was performed to determine the optimal parameters. Hence, this
configuration represents an application of value-added from biomass supply
chain residues. This fact could contribute to determining the potential of
lignocellulosic biomass toward energy diversification.
Last, the conceptual development of the biomass supply chains could be
analyzed to explore other products and possibilities including feedstock
production and collection, gasification, syngas conditioning, and downstream
processing. For instance, the valorization of the syngas and by-products could
be covered in future research through technological scenarios that assess the
syngas conversion into biofuel production (i.e., FT products achieved an
increase of 11 and 32% related to the power output of SCB-CFB and SCB-
DFB configurations), bulk-chemical/fuels, or hybrid systems (chemical,
fuels, and power generation).
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the
corresponding authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization and methodology design: PS, SM, and JP; data analysis
and validation: PS, SM, and AP; writing—original draft preparation: PS, SM,
AP, and JP; supervision: R-UD and JP; project administration: R-UD, RM,
and JP.

FUNDING
This research was conducted within a FAPESP-BIOEN thematic research
project, 2015/20630-4. The authors acknowledge the São Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP) for grants 2017/03091-8 and 2017/16106-3.
Furthermore, SM and R-UD gratefully acknowledge the financial support
from the strategic project “Future Fuels” of the German Aerospace Center
(DLR).

PUBLISHER’S NOTE
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the
publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated
in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not
guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fceng.2021.727068/full#supplementary
material

ABBREVIATIONS
DB, dry basis; B (MW), exergy flow rate; LHV (kJ/kg), lower heating value;
HHV (kJ/kg), higher heating value; Nm3, normal cubic meter; MWth,
megawatt-hour thermal; MWe, megawatt electric; kWth, kilowatt-hour
thermal; b kJ/kg, specific flow exergy; WB, wet basis; CAPEX, capital
expenditures or capital investment costs; CFB, circulating fluidized bed
gasifier; DFB, dual fluidized bed gasifier; EC, equipment costs; FT, Fischer–
Tropsch; FCI, fixed capital investment; LCM, lignocellulosic materials; NPC,
net production costs; OPEX, operational expenditures; TEPET, techno-
economic process evaluation tool; SCB, sugarcane bagasse; STB ratio,
steam-to-biomass.

REFERENCES
AACE International (2011). “Cost Estimate Classification System - as Applied in Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries,” in Morgantown, United State:
Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering . https://web.aacei.org.
Ahmed, I. I., and Gupta, A. K. (2012). Sugarcane Bagasse Gasification: Global Reaction Mechanism of
Syngas Evolution. Appl. Energ. 91 (1), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.001
Albrecht, F. G., König, D. H., Baucks, N., and Dietrich, R.-U. (2017). A Standardized Methodology for
the Techno-Economic Evaluation of Alternative Fuels - A Case Study. Fuel 194 (April), 511–526.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.003
AlNouss, A., McKay, G., and Al-Ansari, T. (2019). A Techno-Economic-Environmental Study
Evaluating the Potential of Oxygen-Steam Biomass Gasification for the Generation of Value-Added
Products. Energ. Convers. Manage. 196 (September), 664–676.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.019
Anukam, A., Mamphweli, S., Reddy, P., Meyer, E., and Okoh, O. (2016). Pre-Processing of Sugarcane
Bagasse for Gasification in a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier System: A Comprehensive Review.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 66 (December), 775–801. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.046
Asadullah, M. (2014). Barriers of Commercial Power Generation Using Biomass Gasification Gas: A
Review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 29 (January), 201–215. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.074
Bakshi, B. R. (2019). Sustainable Engineering. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781108333726
Basu, P. (2018). Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction. Practical Design and Theory. 3rd
ed. Elsevier.
Benalcázar, E. A., Deynoot, B. G., Noorman, H., Osseweijer, P., and Posada, J. A. (2017). Production
of Bulk Chemicals from Lignocellulosic Biomass via Thermochemical Conversion and Syngas
Fermentation: a Comparative Techno‐economic and Environmental Assessment of Different Site‐
specific Supply Chain Configurations. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11 (5), 861–886.
doi:10.1002/bbb.1790
Broer, K. M., and Peterson., C. (2019). “Gasification,” in Thermochemical Processing Of Biomass .
2nd ed. ( John Wiley & Sons), 85–123. doi:10.1002/9781119417637.ch4
Camacho-ardila, Y., Figueroa, J., Lunelli, B. H., Filho, R. M., and Maciel, M. R. (2012). “Syngas
Production from Sugar Cane Bagasse in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier Using Aspen Plus,” in
Proceedings 22nd European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, London-UK (
Elsevier). doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-59520-1.50077-4
Corella, J., Toledo, J. M., and Molina, G. (2007). A Review on Dual Fluidized-Bed Biomass Gasifiers.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46, 6831–6839. doi:10.1021/ie0705507
da Silva, E. B., Assato, M., and de Lima, R. C. (2013). Performance Prediction of Gas Turbine under
Different Strategies Using Low Heating Value FuelIn. American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Digital Collection. doi:10.1115/GT2013-96013
Damartzis, T., and Zabaniotou, a. (2011). Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Second
Generation Biofuels through Integrated Process Design-A Review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (1),
366–378. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.003
de Medeiros, E. M., Posada, J. A., Noorman, H., Osseweijer, P., and Filho, R. M. (2017). Hydrous
Bioethanol Production from Sugarcane Bagasse via Energy Self-Sufficient Gasification-
Fermentation Hybrid Route: Simulation and Financial Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 168 (December),
1625–1635. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.165
Emun, F., Gadalla, M., Majozi, T., and Boer, D. (2010). Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) Process Simulation and Optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34 (3), 331–338.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2009.04.007
Energy Technologies Institute. 2020. “Delivering the UK’s Future Energy Technologies.” Bioenergy
Project: TEA Biomass Pre-processing Down-Selection and Workshop Report. Energy Technologies
Institute – ETI. Available at:
https://data.ukedc.rl.ac.uk/browse/edc/renewables/bioenergy/TEAB/TEAB_Reports/.(Accessed
November 9, 2020).
EPE. 2019. Brazilian Energy Research Company. Available at: http://www.epe.gov.br.
Esmaili, E., Mostafavi, E., and Mahinpey, N. (2016). Economic Assessment of Integrated Coal
Gasification Combined Cycle with Sorbent CO2 Capture. Appl. Energ. 169 (May), 341–352.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.035
Gómez-Barea, A., and Leckner, B. (2010). Modeling of Biomass Gasification in Fluidized Bed. Prog.
Energ. Combustion Sci. 36 (4), 444–509. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2009.12.002
Hanchate, N., Ramani, S., Mathpati, C. S., and Dalvi, V. H. (2021). Biomass Gasification Using Dual
Fluidized Bed Gasification Systems: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 280 (January), 123148.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123148
Hannula, I. (2016). Hydrogen Enhancement Potential of Synthetic Biofuels Manufacture in the
European Context: A Techno-Economic Assessment. Energy 104 (June), 199–212.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.119
Heinze, C., May, J., Peters, J., Ströhle, J., and Epple, B. (2019). Techno-Economic Assessment of
Polygeneration Based on Fluidized Bed Gasification. Fuel 250 (August), 285–291.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.020
International Renewable Energy Agency (2016). Innovation Outlook Advanced Liquid Biofuels.
IRENA. Available at: https://www.irena.org/.
Kim, H., Lee, S., Lee, B., Park, J., Lim, H., and Won, W. (2021). Improving Revenue from
Lignocellulosic Biofuels: An Integrated Strategy for Coproducing Liquid Transportation Fuels and
High Value-Added Chemicals. Fuel , 287. October, 119369. Fuel. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119369
Kotas, T. J. (1985). The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Design. London-UK: Butterworths.
Liu, Z., and Karimi, I. A. (2018). Simulation and Optimization of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Power Plant for Part-Load Operation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 131 (March), 29–40.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2017.12.009
Marais, H., van Schoor, G., and Uren, K. R. (2019). The Merits of Exergy-Based Fault Detection in
Petrochemical Processes. J. Process Control. 74, 110–119. November.
doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.11.005
Mehrpooya, M., Khalili, M., and Sharifzadeh, M. M. M. (2018). Model Development and Energy and
Exergy Analysis of the Biomass Gasification Process (Based on the Various Biomass Sources).
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 91 (August), 869–887. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.076
Molino, A., Larocca, V., Chianese, S., and Musmarra, D. (2018). Biofuels Production by Biomass
Gasification: A Review. Energies 11 (4), 811. doi:10.3390/en11040811
Nikoo, M. B., and Mahinpey., N. (2008). Simulation of Biomass Gasification in Fluidized Bed Reactor
Using ASPEN PLUS. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (12), 1245–1254.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.020
Niu, M., Xie, J., Liang, S., Liu, L., Wang, L., and Peng, Y. (2021). Simulation of a New Biomass
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (BIGCC) Power Generation System Using Aspen Plus:
 Performance Analysis and Energetic Assessment. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 46 (43), 22356–22367.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.076
Nogueira, L. A. H., Seabra, J. E. A., and Macedo, I. C. (2011). “Biomass Gasification for Ethanol
Production,” in In Routes To Cellulosic Ethanol ed . Editors M. S. Buckeridge, and G. H. Goldman
(New York, NY: Springer), 27–41. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-92740-4_3
Ofori-Boateng, C., and Lee, K. T. (2013). Comparative Thermodynamic Sustainability Assessment of
Lignocellulosic Pretreatment Methods for Bioethanol Production via Exergy Analysis. Chem. Eng.
J. 228 (July), 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2013.04.082
Patuzzi, F., Basso, D., Vakalis, S., Antolini, D., Piazzi, S., Benedetti, V., et al. (2021). State-of-the-Art
of Small-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems: An Extensive and Unique Monitoring Review.
Energy 223 (May), 120039. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.120039
Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K., and West, R. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers. New York, United States: McGraw-Hill Education.
Pregger, T., Schiller, G., Cebulla, F., Dietrich, R.-U., Maier, S., Thess, A., et al. (2020). Future Fuels-
Analyses of the Future Prospects of Renewable Synthetic Fuels. Energies 13 (1), 138.
doi:10.3390/en13010138
Ptasinski, Krzysztof. (2016). “Exergy Analysis,” in Efficiency of Biomass Energy: An Exergy Approach
to Biofuels, Power, and Biorefineries ( John Wiley & Sons), 37–90.
doi:10.1002/9781119118169.ch2
Rahimi, M. J., Hamedi, M. H., Amidpour, M., and Livani, E. (2020). Technoeconomic Evaluation of a
Gasification Plant: Modeling, Experiment and Software Development. Waste Biomass Valor. 11,
6815–6840. February. doi:10.1007/s12649-019-00925-1
Rupesh, S., Muraleedharan, C., and Arun, P. (2016). Energy and Exergy Analysis of Syngas Production
from Different Biomasses through Air-Steam Gasification. Front. Energ. 14, 607–619. December.
doi:10.1007/s11708-016-0439-1
Safarian, S., Unnþórsson, R., and Richter, C. (2019). A Review of Biomass Gasification Modelling.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 110 (August), 378–391. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.003
Shahabuddin, M., Krishna, B. B., Bhaskar, T., and Perkins, G. (2020). Advances in the Thermo-
Chemical Production of Hydrogen from Biomass and Residual Wastes: Summary of Recent
Techno-Economic Analyses. Bioresour. Tech. 299 (March), 122557.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122557
Silva, I. P., Lima, R. M. A., LimaRuzene, G. F., Ruzene, D. S., and Silva, D. P. (2019).
Thermodynamic Equilibrium Model Based on Stoichiometric Method for Biomass Gasification: A
Review of Model Modifications. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 114 (October), 109305.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109305
Silva Ortiz, P., and de Oliveira, S. (2014). Exergy Analysis of Pretreatment Processes of Bioethanol
Production Based on Sugarcane Bagasse. Energy 76 (November), 130–138.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.090
Silva, V. B., and Rouboa, A. (2014). Predicting the Syngas Hydrogen Composition by Using a Dual
Stage Equilibrium Model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 39 (1), 331–338.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.053
Sousa Cardoso, J., Silva, V., Eusébio, D., Lima Azevedo, I., Tarelho, L. A. C., and Tarelho, C. (2020).
Techno-Economic Analysis of Forest Biomass Blends Gasification for Small-Scale Power
Production Facilities in the Azores. Fuel 279 (November), 118552. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118552
Szargut, J., Morris, D., and Steward, F. (1988). Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and
Metallurgical Processes. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Toscano Miranda, N., Lopes Motta, I., Maciel Filho, R., and Wolf Maciel, M. R. (2021). Sugarcane
Bagasse Pyrolysis: A Review of Operating Conditions and Products Properties. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 149 (October), 111394. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111394
Watanabe, M. D. B., Morais, E. R., Cardoso, T. F., Chagas, M. F., Junqueira, T. L., Carvalho, D. J., et
al. (2020). Process Simulation of Renewable Electricity from Sugarcane Straw: Techno-Economic
Assessment of Retrofit Scenarios in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 254 (May), 120081.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120081
Weiland, N. T., and White, C. W. (2018). Techno-Economic Analysis of an Integrated Gasification
Direct-Fired Supercritical CO2 Power Cycle. Fuel 212 (January), 613–625.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.022
Worley, M., and Yale, M. (2012). Biomass Gasification Technology Assessment: Consolidated Report
(Technical Report). Golden, CO. United States: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL).
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1059145.
Zornek, T., Monz, T., and Aigner, M. (2015). Performance Analysis of the Micro Gas Turbine Turbec
T100 with a New FLOX-Combustion System for Low Calorific Fuels. Appl. Energ. 159
(December), 276–284. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.075

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in
the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.The handling Editor declared a
past co-authorship/collaboration with the authors (PS, JP, RM).
Copyright © 2021 Silva Ortiz, Maier, Dietrich, Pinto Mariano, Maciel Filho
and Posada. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s)
and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.