Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Methanol production via pressurized entrained flow biomass gasification: Techno-economic comparison of integrated vs. stand-alone production
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Energy Technology Center.
2014 (English)In: Biomass and Bioenergy, ISSN 0961-9534, E-ISSN 1873-2909, Vol. 64, p. 256-268Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The main objective with this work was to investigate techno-economically the opportunity for integrated gasification-based biomass-to-methanol production in an existing chemical pulp and paper mill. Three different system configurations using the pressurized entrained flow biomass gasification (PEBG) technology were studied, one stand-alone plant, one where the bark boiler in the mill was replaced by a PEBG unit and one with a co-integration of a black liquor gasifier operated in parallel with a PEBG unit. The cases were analysed in terms of overall energy efficiency (calculated as electricity-equivalents) and process economics. The economics was assessed under the current as well as possible future energy market conditions. An economic policy support was found to be necessary to make the methanol production competitive under all market scenarios. In a future energy market, integrating a PEBG unit to replace the bark boiler was the most beneficial case from an economic point of view. In this case the methanol production cost was reduced in the range of 11-18 Euro per MWh compared to the stand-alone case. The overall plant efficiency increased approximately 7%-units compared to the original operation of the mill and the non-integrated stand-alone case. In the case with co-integration of the two parallel gasifiers, an equal increase of the system efficiency was achieved, but the economic benefit was not as apparent. Under similar conditions as the current market and when methanol was sold to replace fossil gasoline, co-integration of the two parallel gasifiers was the best alternative based on received IRR. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 64, p. 256-268
Keyword [en]
Biomass, Gasification, Methanol, Process integration, Pulp and paper mill
Keyword [sv]
Energiteknik
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-6942DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.063Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84899929098OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-6942DiVA: diva2:964797
Available from: 2016-09-08 Created: 2016-09-08 Last updated: 2017-11-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus
By organisation
SP Energy Technology Center
In the same journal
Biomass and Bioenergy
Energy Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 13 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.30.1