Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Analysis of a feasible polygeneration system for power and methanol

production taking natural gas and biomass as materials
Hongqiang Li a,b, Hui Hong a, Hongguang Jin a,*, Ruixian Cai a
a
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Co-utilization of natural gas and biomass is a successful way to make efficient use of them for chemical
Received 2 March 2009 production and power generation, for biomass is rich in carbon while natural gas is rich in hydrogen. The
Received in revised form 2 July 2009 present paper therefore proposes a new polygeneration system taking biomass and natural gas as mate-
Accepted 6 July 2009
rials for methanol production and power generation. The new polygeneration system can achieve the
Available online 22 September 2009
optimal ratio of H2 to CO for methanol production by adjusting input ratio of natural gas to biomass with-
out any energy penalty. Thus, the suggested system can eliminate CO to H2 shift process and CO2 remove
Keywords:
process, which can avoid material and energy destruction; however, those processes are otherwise nec-
Biomass
Methanol production
essary in individual biomass to methanol plant. Moreover, the new system eliminates the CO2 addition
Polygeneration process; however, the addition of CO2 is necessary in individual natural gas to methanol plant, which
Co-feed causes extra energy penalty. This system combined chemical production and power generation together,
Complementary in order to achieve the cascaded utilization of chemical and physical energy of natural gas and biomass. In
a further way, we investigated the key processes, to maximize the utilization of energy and improve sys-
tem performance.
A thermo-chemical process taking biomass and natural gas as co-feedstock is compared with the sys-
tems that only taking either biomass or natural gas as resource for methanol production and power gen-
eration. The evaluation and calculation of the systems are carried out by help of Aspen Plus process
simulator. The evaluation results indicate that, the new polygeneration system can reduce materials
input at least 9% compared with individual systems with same output. In a further way, the effect of nat-
ural gas to biomass feed ratio on system performance is also investigated. The research results show that,
the proposed polygeneration system would be expected to realize efficient utilization of biomass and nat-
ural gas, and offer a possibility of developing new technologies for biomass and natural gas based
systems.
Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Background fuels, such as pyrolysis, gasification, combustion with coal and so

With respect to global issues of sustainable energy and reduc-
tion of greenhouse gases, biomass is getting increasing attention
as a potential source of renewable energy [1]. Biomass is an abun-
dant feedstock containing mainly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and
volatile matter. Bio-energy can be produced by thermal chemical
or biochemical operations/transformations, and applied to several
raw feedstocks such as municipal solid wastes, crop, plant and
wood residues, animal wastes, aquatic and sewage sludge. How-
ever, biomass is being traditionally used as energy mainly for cook-
ing and heating particularly in developing countries. With the
development of technology in energy filed, various biomass con-
version technologies producing heat, power, and liquid or gaseous
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 10 82622854.
E-mail address: hgjin@mail.etp.ac.cn (H. Jin).
on, are under study [2,3]. It is because that, biomass is a CO2 neu-
tral resource and distributed extensively. More over, if any CO2
mitigation technology is adopted during biomass utilization, nega-
tive CO2 emission will be realized, which can reduce the CO2 con-
tent in atmosphere essentially. Currently, the black liquid (by
product of pulp and paper mills) has received more attention, espe-
cially in Europe [4–6]. There have been many conceptual efficient
energy systems with CO2 capture and storage from renewable bio-
mass in pulp and paper mills [7,8].
Traditionally, syngas as raw material for producing methanol is
mainly generated from coal gasification or natural gas reforming.
Nevertheless, the excessively use of non-renewable fossil fuel has
brought serious problems, such as energy crisis, environmental
pollution and the aggravation of greenhouse effect. Syngas from
renewable resources, such as biomass, exhibits a promising pro-
spective. Thus, the syngas from biomass gasification for methanol

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.001
 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853
Nomenclature
EB energy consumption for per ton methanol output in
individual biomass to methanol production process
(GJ/t)
EN energy consumption for per ton methanol output in
individual natural gas to methanol production process
(GJ/t)
ER energy saving ratio
Finput total fuel consumption in the polygeneration system
(kJ/s)
P chemical product output (kJ/s)
W power output (kW)
Sinput total input of individual systems with the same power
and methanol output (kJ/s)
production has attracted more and more attention. Many research-
ers have done work on the gasification of black liquid and produce
syngas for methanol/DME production [9,10]. In the latest years,
several projects have been demonstrated [11,12], such as the Hy-
nol project in the United States, the Bio-Meet and Bio-Fuels pro-
jects in Sweden and the BGMSS project in Japan. However, there
are several problems for biomass to methanol production. For
example, (H2 – CO2/CO + CO2) ratio (H/C for short) in the syngas
produced by biomass gasification usually is not the best stoichiom-
etric ratio 2 for methanol production (2H2 + CO = CH4O;
3H2 + CO2 = CH4O + H2O). Therefore, each biomass-based methanol
production system has to remove more CO2 away and adopt a shift
process (CO + H2O = CO2 + H2) to adjust H/C, which will cause
material and energy destruction. In addition, there is a captive
power plant (CPP for short) in individual biomass to methanol sys-
tem (B–MS) to satisfy station service. Captive power plant always
adopts steam cycle (Rankine cycle) for power generation, which
has a very low thermal efficiency (<0.3). Therefore, it should be
worthy noted that, such biomass to methanol systems could not
realize efficient utilization of biomass, giving rise to relatively
higher energy consumption. Besides that, it is hard to realize bio-
mass large-scale utilization due to high collection cost. Traditional
natural gas to methanol pant also has problems, especially the CO2
addition problem, which will cause extra energy consumption. H/C
in the syngas from natural gas reforming is three, which means the
H2 is relative excessive. Well, if we complement biomass and nat-
ural gas, the problems mentioned above will be avoided, not only
the component adjusting issue but also the scale issue can be
solved at the same time.
Liquid fuels production processes have similarities with com-
bined cycle power generation, for example, both processes require
gas mixture (CO + H2) as intermediate material. These similarities
indicate the possibility of co-producing electricity and liquid fuels,
as well as hydrogen, heat, and chemicals in one system [13,14]. Co-
production can obtain higher system efficiency and less pollutant
emission, which is one of the surstanding features of polygenera-
tion systems. In addition, polygeneration systems can improve
profit margins and market penetration, decrease the overall capital
investment cost, reduce GHG (green house gas) emission, increase
feedstock flexibility, and alleviate dependence on crude oil and all
refinery fuels. It also combines power generation and chemical fuel
production in one plant (producing both electricity and fuels),
thereby providing a promising alternative towards achieving sus-
tainable and flexible energy development.
This paper has the following objectives: (1) to propose a feasible
biomass and natural gas complementary polygeneration system
for methanol production and power generation. The system adopts
partial recycling of un-reacted syngas and eliminates the shift pro-
2847
Ru molar ratio of the sum of the fresh and un-reacted syn-
gas to the fresh syngas
T0 ambient temperature (K)
T the temperature of hot source (K)
r input ratio of natural gas to biomass (based on LHV)
R output ratio of methanol to power (based on exergy)
Greek symbols
gB BIGCC power generation efficiency
gN CC power generation efficiency
cess of CO to H2; (2) to identify the features of the proposed system
from the viewpoint of cascaded utilization of chemical and physi-
cal energy; (3) and to examine the effect of the key operating
parameters on system performance.
2. Individual systems introduction
2.1. Natural gas to methanol system (N–MS)
Natural gas as material methanol production process with low-
pressure synthesis scheme is selected as reference system [15], and
the simplified flow sheet is shown in Fig. 1.
As we can see from Fig. 1, the mixture of natural gas and steam
is fed into a reformer, in which nearly all CH4 is converted into CO
and H2 (named syngas). The reforming reaction (CH4 + H2O ?
CO + 3H2) is a strong endothermic process and the heat is provided
by burning natural gas. After heat recovery and compressed to
100 bar, the syngas enters into methanol synthesis reactor. The
exit stream from the synthesis reactor enters into a gas/liquid
separator, where the crude methanol will be separated from
un-reacted syngas. Then, main of the un-reacted syngas will be
recycled back into the reactor. A little part of un-reacted syngas
will be separated as purge gas. The crude methanol will be sent
to distill towers to be purified.
In conventional natural gas to methanol plant, the main pur-
pose is to produce methanol as much as possible with the same
material input, namely to get the highest final conversion ratio of
natural gas to methanol. High final conversion ratio means that,
high reforming ratio in the reformer is required. However, that
means much more natural gas needs to be burnt for satisfying
reforming heat, and more exergy destruction occurs during natural
gas combustion. Moreover, in order to convert nearly all the syngas
into methanol, high recycling ratio of un-reacted syngas is neces-
sary in methanol synthesis process, which consumes much more
power by recycling compressors. Besides that, the syngas produced
by natural gas reforming with steam contains a molar ratio of H/C
about 3:1, which means that, in the following methanol synthesis
process (CO + 2H2 = CH4O), there will be one third of H2 left. In or-
der to convert the left superfluous H2 into methanol, extra CO2 sep-
arated from flue gas will be added for methanol production
(CO2 + 3H2 = CH4O + H2O). However, this process will lead to extra
energy penalty to separate CO2 from flue gas.
2.2. Biomass to methanol system (B–MS)
Fig. 2 describes the individual biomass to methanol plant. The
individual biomass to methanol plant was configured based on
the bal-fuels project [16].
2848 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853

Fresh gas preparatio n unit Chemical synthesis unit

Cycling compressor
Cycling syngas
Fresh gas
Fresh Compressor Unreacted Crude
Natural gas Heat gas Methanol
syngas methanol
Reform recovery Sythesis Dis tillation
Seperation

Air Uncycled syngas

Combustion

Combustion
Steam for distillation
Air
Power
Hot flue gas
Hot flue gas Power
HSRG & steam turbine

Feed water
Steam for reforming

Power unit
Flue gas

gas and liquid steam power purge

Fig. 1. Conventional natural gas reforming with steam to methanol system.

Steam
O2 from air seperation unit
Liquid CO2

Biomass Clean Heat

Gasification Shift process CO2 clean up
process recovery

Steam by product

Synthesis
tower
Methanol cycling fresh
Distillation Raw methanol compressor compressor

Gas & liquid Cycling gas

combustible
seperation
Steam
Steam Steam
Captive
power plant
Power
Purge gas

Steam main stream power

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the biomass to methanol plant.

As shown in Fig. 2, biomass and O2 produced in air separation
unit (ASU) with a purity 0.95 (molar) are feed into a gasifier. The
produced gas from gasifier contains tars, particles, dust, alkali, sul-
phuric and chloride compounds that can block or poison the cata-
lysts downstream and cause corrosion of the equipment [17,18].
According to research of Hamelinck and Faaij [19], the advanced
high temperature dry cleaning process (see Fig. 3) achieves con-
taminant concentrations between 10 and 20 ppbv, sufficient to
avoid catalyst contamination and damage to the equipment. Con-
ventional gasification processes applied to biomass do not always
produce a qualified syngas for methanol production. Because, for
methanol synthesis reaction CO + 2H2 = CH4O, the best ratio of H/
C is 2.0. The gasification of biomass always results in a syngas with
H/CO ratio about 1:1.5, thus the shift (CO + H2O = CO2 + H2) process
is always necessary. After shift process, MEA absorption decarburi-
zation process followed. Finally, the qualified syngas is feed into
methanol synthesis reactor after compressing. Methanol synthesis
technology adopts Lurgi technology. The Lurgi technology pro-
duces methanol by catalytic conversion of synthesis gas at low
pressure in gaseous phase. The stream exit from synthesis reactor

Raw gas Clean gas

Tranular Candle Alkali Halogen Sulphur
Tar cracker
beds filters removal absorption absorption

Fig. 3. Flow chart of advanced high temperature dry cleaning process.

 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853
with temperature 260 °C and pressure 100 bar, will flow into a gas/
liquid separator after heat recovery. The crude methanol is pro-
cessed in distill towers to achieve the required purity.
In individual biomass to methanol plant as described above,
high conversion ratio of raw material to product is the final pur-
pose. In such a system, the final conversion of H2, CO is 0.84 and
0.95, respectively. Because the syngas produced in gasifier could
not meet the optimal ratio of H2 to CO (2). Therefore, shift reaction
process will be adopted. Pay attention to the shift reaction: CO +
H2O = CO2 + H2, which is an exothermic reaction. During the shift
process, part of CO will be converted into H2, and lot of heat is re-
leased which does not have work capacity for its low temperature.
Or rather to say, shift process produces more H2 at the cost of CO
destruction and heat release with low grade. Besides that, it also
deteriorates the following CO2 removing process, more energy will
be consumed by removing the more CO2 generated in shift process.
In individual biomass to methanol plant, the ratio of H/C in raw
syngas is about 1:1.5, while the optimal ratio is 2.0 for methanol
production. However, if we do not adopt shift process, the relative
superfluous CO will be burnt in the captive power plant (CPP for
short) directly, which will cause more exergy destruction for low
electricity generation efficiency in CPP. However, if there is a better
way to deal with the extra CO, the exergy destruction will decrease
or even be avoided.
High recycling ratio of un-reacted syngas is also necessary for
low once through conversion ratio of H2 (general below 0.4). In
individual biomass to methanol system, most of the un-reacted
syngas will be recycled back into methanol synthesis reactor, only
a little is released as purge gas. It is obviously that, more
un-reacted syngas recycling; more compressing work will be
consumed. We should find a better way to make good use of
un-reacted syngas. For example, if part of the un-reacted syngas
is recycled with acceptable work and the left part is send into a
gas turbine as fuel, which will achieve the cascaded utilization of
syngas.
3. The suggested biomass and natural gas complementary
polygeneration system for methanol and power
According to the compositions of syngas produced from natural
gas reforming and biomass gasification, the syngas produced from
Biomass 1 3 Feed water
Gasiflicaiton
O2 form asu 17 Fresh syngas
compressor
Natural gas 2 React 4 Heat 5 6
pines recovery Fresh syngas
Heat
Feformer
Hot steam
9
Combustion
13 Unreacted syngas
12
14
Combustor
Compressed air
GT
15
Gas turbine exhaust
16
Hot flue gas
Steam for reforming
main streams steam
Fig. 4. Natural gas & biomass co-feed polygeneration system with syngas once through scheme.
2849
natural gas has a relative higher H/C ratio to produce methanol,
while the syngas produced from biomass gas has a relative lower
H/C ratio to produce methanol. Therefore, if we put the two kind’s
syngas together, then best H/C ratio can be obtained by adjusting
natural gas to biomass input ratio without any energy penalty. Be-
sides that, the new system can combine the methanol production
and power generation in a tandem way, which can make a better
use of natural gas and biomass and realize cascaded utilization of
chemical and physical energy.
3.1. System integration with scheme one—syngas once through scheme
(P-OTM)
Fig. 4 represents the flow sheet of the natural gas and biomass
complementary polygeneration system for methanol production
and power generation with scheme one—syngas once through. This
system consists of four subsystems: syngas preparation, methanol
synthesis process, distillation process and power generation
[16,17,19].
3.1.1. Syngas preparation
As can be seen from Fig. 4, biomass gasification and natural gas
reforming produce the syngas for methanol production. The bio-
mass (stream 1) and O2 produced from air separation unit (ASU)
with a purity of 0.95 (molar fraction) are fed into a Lurgi gasifier
[20,21]. Raw syngas (stream 3) is produced by biomass gasification
with temperature of 952 °C and pressure of 65 bar, the other part
of syngas (stream 4) is produced by natural gas reformed with
steam. Then, the two syngas streams 3 and 4 mixed and flow into
methanol synthesis process.
3.1.2. The methanol synthesis process
Methanol synthesis technology adopts Lurgi technology. The
fresh syngas stream 5 is fed into the methanol synthesis reactor
after compressed to 100 bar. The stream 7 exiting from synthesis
reactor with a temperature 260 °C and pressure of 98 bar will flow
into a gas/liquid separator after heat recovery. After cooling and
separation, the crude methanol stream 8 is fed into distill towers
to achieve the required quality (>99.9% wt). The un-reacted syngas
(steam 9) is then separated into two streams, specifically stream
12 and 13. Stream 13 is sent into the reformer as fuel to be burnt
Methanol 7 8 Distilling
10
synthesis
gas/liquid tower Pure methanol
tower Crude methanol
separation
11
Flash gas
Steam for distillation
Hot steam
by product
Power
Power
HRSG and Steam turbines
18
flue
power waste streams
2850 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853

Biomass 1 3 Feed water Recycle compressor Part of unreacted syngas

Gasiflicaiton
O2 form asu 17 Fresh syngas 19
compressor
Natural gas 2 React 4 Heat 5 6 Methanol 78 Distilling
10
pines recovery Fresh syngas synthesis Pure methanol
gas/liquid tower
tower Crude methanol
separation

Heat
Feformer 11
Hot steam
Flash gas
13 9
Combustion
Unreacted syngas Steam for distillation
12
14
Combustor Hot steam
Compressed air by product

GT
15 Power
Gas turbine exhaust
16 Power
Hot flue gas HRSG and Steam turbines

Steam for reforming

18
flue

main streams steam power waste streams

Fig. 5. Natural gas & biomass co-feed polygeneration system with un-reacted syngas partial recycle scheme.

to supply natural gas reforming heat; while stream 12 is sent to the
power generation subsystem as fuel. Attention that, in this scheme,
none un-reacted syngas is recycled back into methanol synthesis
tower, which is different from the individual natural gas or bio-
mass to methanol plant.
3.1.3. Distillation process
After going through the gas/liquid separator, raw methanol
stream 8 flows into the distillation unit for purification. Here, three
towers are adopted, namely, the flash tower, the light tower, and
the heavy tower. In distillation process, there is no difference be-
tween polygeneration system and individual biomass or natural
gas to methanol system.
3.1.4. Power generation
The advanced combined cycle for power generation is adopted
in this polygeneration system. However, the power needed in indi-
vidual biomass to methanol plant is generated by captive power
plant. In the captive power plant, pines are burnt to generate the
steam used in Rankine cycle, which leads to a low thermal effi-
ciency, generally below 0.3. On the contrary, the power generation
in the proposed system can obtain a higher thermal efficiency, gen-
erally above 0.35.
3.2. System integration with scheme two—un-reacted syngas partial
recycle scheme (P-PCM)
In this scheme, part of un-reacted syngas, attention to stream
19, will be recycled back into methanol synthesis tower, which is
different from scheme one (syngas once through, no un-reacted
syngas recycling). The other parts are the same with scheme one.
The flow sheet of the suggested polygeneration system with
scheme two is shown in Fig. 5.
3.3. Characters of the suggested polygeneration system with two
schemes
From the viewpoint of system configuration, the suggest poly-
generation system with two schemes have such advantages as
flowing:
1. By adjusting the input ratio of natural gas and biomass, the sug-
gested polygeneration can obtain the optimal ratio of H/C for
methanol production without any energy penalty. That is to
say, the new system can avoid the shift and carbon removing
processes that are needed in individual biomass to methanol
system, and avoid carbon addition process that is needed in
individual natural gas to methanol system.
2. Partial un-reacted syngas is adopted as fuel in power generation
subsystem. Combined cycle is adopted instead of the Rankine
cycle, which leads to the increase of power generation effi-
ciency, and a better use of un-reacted syngas.
3. In the natural gas reforming with steam process, adopting par-
tial natural gas reforming. That is to say, the polygeneration
system can brings down reforming temperature and steam sup-
plying quantity, which results in lower energy consumption for
per CH4 reforming.
4. Part of un-reacted syngas instead of fresh natural gas is burnt in
reformer to supply reforming heat, which decreases combus-
tion exergy destruction. Besides that, the hot flue gas from gas
turbine is selected as the oxidant instead of air, which increased
the temperature of reactant. The both parts can bring energy
saving potential.
5. In scheme one, none un-reacted syngas is recycled, which can
avoid recycling work. In scheme two, part of the un-reacted
syngas is recycled back into methanol synthesis tower with
acceptable work, which aims to adjust the output ratio of meth-
anol to power.
6. There will be more freedom to achieve heat integration, realized
the principle of cased utilization of chemical and physical
energy by combined chemical production and power generation
in cascaded structure.
7. In this suggested polygeneration system, the bio-energy can be
stored in liquid methanol, and can get over the shortcomings of
small scale, high decentralization and low energy density in
biomass utilization. Besides that, the biomass as a kind of
renewable sources can replace part of natural gas, which is
un-renewable, realized energy sustainable development.
8. The new polygeneration system with scheme two can satisfy
different demand of methanol and electricity by adjusting the
recycle quantity of un-reacted syngas.
 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853 2851

4. System evaluation criteria and thermal performance Meanwhile, P and W represent the output work and the chem-
ical product output in polygeneration system, and r represents the
4.1. System evaluation criteria input ratio of biomass to natural gas (based on lower heat value).
Sinput represents the total energy input in both individual systems
Since the proposed polygeneration system has two kinds of with the same power and methanol output compared with poly-
products and two materials input, the exergy efficiency gex can generation system. Thus, the ER criterion indicates the energy
serve as a basic criterion to evaluate the thermodynamic perfor- saved in the polygeneration system compared with the individual
mance. It is defined as: systems, based on the biomass gasification corresponding to the
same methanol and power output.
Pout
gex ¼  100%
Pin
4.2. System simulation and results
However, in order to give prominence to the suggested polygen-
eration system performance, another criterion of energy saving ra- In this study, pine chips were selected as raw material due to
tio ER is defined [22]: their broad distribution in the Northern Hemisphere Temperate
Zone area and in the Frigid Zone area. However, many other bio-
P Pr W W r
Sinput ¼ þ þ þ ð1Þ mass sources likewise can be used in this proposed system. Table
ðr þ 1Þ  gN ðr þ 1Þ  gB ðr þ 1Þ  EN ðr þ 1Þ  EB
1 shows the industrial and elementary analysis according to a
Sinput  P input study conducted from reference [23].
ER ¼  100% ð2Þ
Sinput The thermodynamic performance was examined with the aid of
First, there are two individual power generation, one is biomass commercial software ASPEN PLUS, and a steady state was consid-
integration gasification combined cycle (BIGCC for short) and an- ered. In addition, the gasification of pine chips was considered as
other is combined cycle based on natural gas (CC for short). More- a minimization of the Gibbs free energy process [24]. This trans-
over, the power generation efficiencies are gB and gN, respectively. lates to an assumption of a thermodynamic model, which uses
Energy for methanol production per ton is EB in individual biomass the direct Gibbs free energy minimization to predict the equilib-
to methanol plant (B–MS for short) and EN in individual natural gas rium composition of the syngas [25]. The PENG-ROB equation
to methanol plant (N–MS for short). was applied on the property of working fluid in the gas turbine
part, while the STEAM-A equation was used for steam generation
and steam turbines. On the other hand, the SRK equation was ap-
plied in the CO2 compression process, while the UNIQUIAC prop-
Table 1 erty method was applied in the methanol synthesis process.
Industrial analysis and elementary analysis of pine chips. Simulation assumptions and key operating parameters of individ-
C (%) H (%) O (%) N (%) S (%) Ash (%) ual and polygeneration systems are listed in Table 2. The simula-
tion results are shown in Table 3.
Elementary analysis (wt)
47.2 5.7 39.2 2.2 0.1 5.6
4.3. Further discussions
Moisture (%) Volatile Fixed Ash (%) LHV
matter (%) carbon (%) (kJ/kg)
Judging from the calculation results, in the scheme one (P-
Industrial analysis
8 76.3 18.1 5.6 16,365 OTM), an ER (energy saving ratio) 0.10 can be obtained with natural
gas 3.3 million kJ and biomass 1.31 million kJ input. However,

Table 2
Simulation assumptions and conditions of systems.

Systems N–MS B–MS CC BIGCC Polygeneration

Air separation consumption (kWh/kg O2) – 0.32 – 0.32 0.32
O2 supplied mol purity – 0.95 – 0.95 0.95
O2 supplied pressure (bar) – 6 – 6 6
Gasification pressure (bar) – 65 – 18 65
Gasification temperature (°C) – 952 – 865 952
Reforming temperature (°C) 950 – – – 850
Reforming pressure (bar) 21 – – – 21
Steam to carbon ratio 3 – – – 2.1
Conversion of CO in shift process – 0.5 – – 0
H2/CO molar ratio in prepared fresh syngas 3:1 1:1.5 – – Varied
Methanol synthesis pressure (bar) 100 100 – – 100
Methanol synthesis temperature (°C) 260 260 – – 260
Recycling ratio, Ru 3.8 4.5 – – Varied
Environment temperature T0 (°C) 25 25 25 25 25
Gas turbine inlet temperature (°C) – – 1200 1200 1200
Gas turbine expansion ratio – – 16 16 16
Pressure of high-pressure steam (bar) – – 120 120 120
Temperature of high-pressure steam (°C) – – 535 535 535
Pressure of mid-pressure steam (bar) – – 39 39 39
Temperature of mid-pressure steam (°C) – – 535 535 535
Pressure of low-pressure steam (bar) – – 5 5 5
Temperature of low-pressure steam (°C) – – 260 260 260
Pressure of steam in captive power station (bar) 120 120 – – –
Temperature of steam in captive power station (°C) 535 535 – – –
Isentropic efficiency of main compressors 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Isentropic efficiency of gas turbine – – 0.87 0.87 0.87
2852 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853

Table 3
System performance of different systems.

BIGCC CC B–MS N–MS P-OTM P-PCM

4
Input LHV (10 kJ)
Biomass 1.54 13.10 13.10 13.10
Natural gas 25.10 33.00 33.00 33.00
Net work (kW) 0.63 13.81 10.35
Methanol output (104 kJ) 6.62 21.95 18.39
Power generation efficiency (LHV) 0.41 0.55
Energy consumption per ton methanol production (GJ/t) 49.20 32.20
Relative energy saving ration, ER (%) 9.7 5–14
Total exergy efficiency 0.41 0.55 0.505 0.665 0.623 0.610–0.700

according to composition characteristics of biomass and natural
gas, much work is done to find the effect of input ratio of natural
gas to biomass (r) on system performance, and the result is shown
in Fig. 6. As we all know, the suggested system involved two kinds
of output, power and methanol. The output ratio of methanol to
power R (based on exergy) is also very important, since that, the
change of R with different natural gas and biomass input is also
evaluated, and the result is shown in Fig. 7.
As seen in Fig. 6, the highest energy saving ratio (ER) about 10%
can be obtained, as the natural gas to biomass input ratio is around
two. It is easy to be explained, that input ratio can lead to the best
molar ratio of H2/CO for methanol synthesis. Seeing from the Fig. 7,
R
E
the output ratio of methanol to power changed very little, nearly
all are around two. That is to say, in the suggested polygeneration
system with scheme one (P-OTM), with the wide varied of input
ratio, especially biomass (which will varied with the season
change), a relative steady R can be obtained, and all the systems
can save input materials 8% at least with the same production com-
paring with individually systems.
In the scheme two (P-PCM), with the optimal natural gas to bio-
mass input ratio, it is worthy emphasized that, the un-reacted syn-
gas from methanol synthesis reactor acts not only as a fuel in the
power generation subsystem, but also as a material to be recycled
back in the chemical subsystem for producing methanol. Or rather
to say, the recycle ratio (Ru means the molar ratio of the syngas in-
put into the methanol synthesis reactor to fresh prepared syngas)
of the un-reacted syngas, which determines the ratio of chemical
product to the power (r). Thus, the recycle ratio of the un-reacted
syngas (Ru), as an important factor, plays a significant role in the
thermodynamic performance of the polygeneration system.
Fig. 8 represents the effect of the recycle ratio of the un-reacted
syngas (Ru) on the energy saving ratio ER of this polygeneration
system with scheme two (P-PCM).
It can be seen that with the increasing of Ru, the energy saving

Input ratio of natural gas to biomass r (based on LHV)
Fig. 6. Effect of input ratio of natural gas to biomass on system performance.
ratio increases too. At Ru of near 1.8, the trend line changed very
slowly. The highest energy saving ratio about 0.14 would be
expected.
At the same time, un-reacted syngas recycling ratio (Ru) can
lead to different out put ratio of chemical to power (R). As seen
in Fig. 9, when recycle ratio of the un-reacted syngas change from
1.05 to 2.0, the output ratio of chemical to power will changes from
2 to 16. It is very obviously that, the suggested polygeneration sys-
tem with scheme two (P-PCM) can satisfy different demand of
methanol and power. Moreover, all the systems can save energy
10% at least.

Input ratio of natural gas to biomass r (based on LHV)

Fig. 7. Effect of input ratio of natural gas to biomass on output ratio of methanol to
power. Fig. 8. Effect of Ru on system performance.
 H. Li et al. / Applied Energy 87 (2010) 2846–2853
Fig. 9. Effect of Ru on R.
5. Conclusions
The suggested polygeneration based on biomass and natural gas
as co-feed with two schemes can realize the cascaded utilization of
chemical and physical energy.
The suggested polygeneration with scheme one can get the
highest energy saving ratio 10% by adjusting the input ratio of nat-
ural gas to biomass about two. Moreover, the output ratio of meth-
anol to power is relative steady between 1.5 and 2.1.
The suggested polygeneration with scheme two can satisfy dif-
ferent demand of methanol and power in a wide range and can
save materials input at least 9.5% comparing with individual
systems.
The research result shows that, the biomass and natural gas
complementary polygeneration system for methanol production
and power generation can make a better use of biomass and natu-
ral gas and realize cascaded utilization of chemical and physical
energy, and can solve biomass scale problem.
Acknowledgments
We would like to gratefully acknowledge the support provided
by the NSFC Project No. 50836005 and the China National Key
Project No. 2010CB227301. In addition, we are likewise grateful
for the financial support provided by the Swedish Research Council
(Vetenskaprdet) and the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
References
[1] Yan JY, Alvfors P, Eidensten L, Svedberg G. A future for biomass. Mech Eng
1997;119(10):94–6.
[2] Larson ED, Kreutz TG, Consonni S. Combined biomass and black liquor gasifier/
gas turbine cogeneration at pulp and paper mills. J Eng Gas Turb Power
1999;121(3):394–400.
2853
[3] Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJ. A review of the primary measure for tar
elimination in biomass gasification processes. Biomass Bioenergy
2003;24(2):125–40.
[4] Yan J, Dahlquist E, Jin H, Lin G, Tu S. Integration of large scale pulp and paper
mills with CO2 mitigation technologies. In: The third int. green energy
conference, IGEC-2007, June 18–20, Sweden.
[5] Möllersten K, Yan J, Westermark M. Potential and cost-effectiveness
of CO2-reduction in the Swedish pulp and paper sector. Energy
2003;28(7):691–710.
[6] Xiao Feng, Li Wang, Shuling Min. Industrial energy evaluation for hydrogen
production systems from biomass and natural gas. Appl Energy
2009;86:1767–73.
[7] Möllersten K, Gao L, Yan J. Efficient emergy systems with CO2 capture and
storage from renewable biomass in pulp and paper mills. Renew Energy
2004;29:1583–98.
[8] Möllersten K, Gao L, Yan J. CO2 balances and mitigation costs of advanced CHP
systems with CO2 capture in pulp and paper mills. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob
Change 2006;11:1129–50.
[9] Ekbom T, Lindblom M, Berglin N, Ahlvik P. Technical and commercial
feasibility study of black liquor gasification with methanol/DME production
as motor fuels for automotive uses-BLGMF. Report for contract no. 4.1030/Z/
01-087/2001; 2003.
[10] Berglin N, Lindblom M, Ekbom T. Efficient production of methanol from
biomass via black liquor gasification. In: Tappi engineering conference, San
Diego, California; 2002.
[11] Wolf BM. Bio-methanol as a fuel available from regional sources. In:
Proceedings of EUROSOLAR conference on promoting global transfer
activities for renewable energies, Berlin, Germany; 2001. p. 387–93.
[12] Spath PL, Dayton DC. Preliminary screening – technical and economic
assessment of synthesis gas to fuels and chemicals with emphasis on the
potential for biomass-derived syngas. Technical report NREL/TP-510-34929.
Colorado (USA): NREL, DOE; 2003.
[13] Gao L, Li HQ, Chen B, Jin HG, Lin RM, Hong H. Proposal of a natural gas-based
polygeneration system for power and methanol production. Energy
2008;33(2):206–12.
[14] Li HQ, Hui H, Jin HG, Cai RX. Exergy analysis on biomass based methanol &
power polygeneration system. J Eng Thermophys 2008;29(2):181–7.
[15] Mednick RL, Romeo JP. Design and evaluation of liquid phase methanol
synthesis technology. In: Proceedings of US DOE/FE indirect liquefaction
contractor’s review meeting; 1988. p. 15–7.
[16] Ecotraffic R&D AB and Nykomb Synergetics AB. Feasibility phase project for
biomass-derived alcohols for automotive and industrial uses. Final report;
1997.
[17] Tijmensen MJA, Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN, van Hardeveld MRM. Exploration of
the possibilities for production of Fischer–Tropsch liquids and power via
biomass gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23(2):129–52.
[18] Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN, Tijmensen MJA. Long term perspectives for
production of fuels from biomass; integrated assessment and R&D priorities.
Final results paper prepared for the 5th biomass conference of the America’s,
Orlando, USA; 2001.
[19] Bridgwater AV. The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification
for power generation. Fuel 1995;74(5):631–53.
[20] Chaudhari ST, Dalai AK, Bakhshi NN. Production of hydrogen and/or syngas
(H2 + CO) via steam gasification of biomass-derived chars. Energy Fuels
2003;17(4):1062–7.
[21] Pengmei LV, Yuan Z, Chen Y, Tsubaki N. Bio-syngas production from biomass
catalytic gasification. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48(4):1132–9.
[22] Gao L, Jin HG, Liu ZL, et al. Exergy analysis of coal-based polygeneration system
for power and chemical production. Energy 2004;29(12–15):2359–71.
[23] Valero A, Usón S. Oxy-co-gasification of coal and biomass in an integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant. Energy 2006;
31(10–11):1643–55.
[24] Nichita VD, Gomez S, Luna E. Multiphase equilibrium calculation by direct
minimization of Gibbs free energy with a global optimization method. Comput
Chem Eng 2002;26(12):1073–724.
[25] Aspen Technology, Inc. Aspen plus getting started modeling processes with
solids. Help documents; 2001.