Energies 2015, 8, 94-110; doi:10.

3390/en8010094
OPEN ACCESS

energies
ISSN 1996-1073
www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article

Design, Optimization and Energetic Efficiency of Producing

Hydrogen-Rich Gas from Biomass Steam Gasification
Po-Chih Kuo and Wei Wu *

Department of Chemical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan;
E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +886-6-275-7575 (ext. 62689); Fax: +886-6-234-4496.

Academic Editor: Jinliang Yuan

Received: 24 October 2014 / Accepted: 11 December 2014 / Published: 25 December 2014

Abstract: In this article, the conceptual design of biomass steam gasification (BSG)
processes using raw oil palm (ROP) and torrefied oil palm (TOP) are examined in an
Aspen Plus simulator. Through thermodynamic analysis, it is verified that the BSG process
with torrefied feedstock can effectively enhance the hydrogen yield. When the heat recovery
design is added into the BSG process, the system energetic efficiency (SEE) is significantly
improved. Finally, an optimization algorithm with respect to SEE and hydrogen yield is
solved, and the optimum operating conditions are validated by simulations.

Keywords: steam biomass gasification; hydrogen production; system energetic efficiency;

thermodynamic analysis; optimization

1. Introduction

Gasification is a thermochemical process that is currently used to produce higher calorific value gases,
such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and other hydrocarbons [1,2]. In these
product gases, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide are called synthesis gas (syngas) which is widely used
in heat or power generation and the synthesis of fuels and chemicals, such as ethanol via a chemical BTL
(biomass to liquid) process [3,4] and methanol or dimethyl ether (DME) [5]. Biomass can be used as
a feedstock for gasification. However, the utilization of biomass as fuels has some drawbacks.
For example, raw biomass contains high moisture levels, so the energy density is low compared to that
Energies 2015, 8 95

of coal, and it cannot be stored for a long time [6–8]. Moreover, it is difficult to comminute the biomass
into small particles due to the high energy consumption required for this [7–9]. The utilization efficiency
of raw biomass is thus relatively low. In order to improve the natural characteristics of raw biomass,
the use of torrefied biomass has been considered to replace that of raw biomass and coal. This is because
torrefied biomass has a number of advantages, such as a lower moisture content, higher energy density,
improved grindability, and the ability to become a more uniform fuel [8,10,11].
In recent years, a combination of torrefaction and gasification has been developed as an effective
process to enhance the efficiency of biomass gasification [12–16]. For instance, Chen et al. [12] used a
bench-scale laminar entrained-flow gasifier to investigate the effect of torrefied sawdust on gasification.
They found that the H2 and CO content increased when using torrefied sawdust, whilst the CO2 content
decreased, and the H2 content at the torrefaction temperatures of 270 or 290 °C was lower than that at
250 °C. They also reported that the cold gas efficiency was improved by torrefaction, especially for
torrefied sawdust at 250 °C. Kuo et al. [13] evaluated torrefied bamboo gasification based on the
thermodynamic equilibrium, and reported that using a torrefaction temperature of 250 °C could enhance
the cold gas efficiency compared to that of both raw bamboo and bamboo torrefied at a temperature of
300 °C. More recently Sarkar et al. [14] gasified torrefied switchgrass in a fixed bed by using air as the
gasifying agent. They concluded that the severity of torrefaction has a significant influence on
gasification performance. Berrueco et al. [15] performed O2/steam gasification of torrefied woody
biomass in a lab scale fluidized bed under various pressures. They found that the gas yield and tar were
positively influenced by the pressure and torrefaction temperature. Weiland et al. [16] conducted
torrefied wood residue gasification in an entrained flow gasifier. They observed that the carbon
conversion was improved by the torrefaction pretreatment.
In general, air, oxygen, and steam can be used as gasifying agents to convert carbonaceous fuels into
gaseous products [1,2]. However, unlike air and oxygen gasification, using steam as gasifying agent
makes it possible to produce hydrogen-rich gas due to the effect of the water gas reaction [1,17,18].
Furthermore, a higher energy content of the produced gas, which is in the range of 10–16 MJ/Nm3,
can be obtained compared with 4–6 MJ/Nm3 when using air [1]. However, steam gasification requires
external heat, because of the endothermic steam reforming reactions involved [19,20].
In reviewing recent studies, it is evident that gasification in association with torrefaction is an
effective and promising method to enhance gasification performance. Although numerous studies have
investigated the gasification characteristics of torrefied biomass, very little work has been done on the
steam gasification process for producing enriched-hydrogen gas from torrefied biomass. For these
reasons, raw oil palm and torrefied oil palm are examined in an Aspen Plus simulator in the present study
in order to comprehensively understand the effects of torrefied fuel on steam gasification performance.
In addition, a heat recovery design is added to the biomass steam gasification (BSG) process to enhance
the system energetic efficiency (SEE). Finally, the optimal operating inlet conditions of the system
are obtained.

2. BSG Process Description

The objective of this model is to simulate the biomass steam gasification (BSG) process using
Aspen Plus V8.4. The model is based on the following main assumptions in the development of the
Energies 2015, 8 96

biomass gasification process: (1) the process is steady and isothermal; (2) the feedstock is at normal
conditions (i.e., 25 °C and 1atm); (3) the solid and gaseous phases are in a state of thermodynamic
equilibrium; (4) the gaseous species in the system are H2O, H2, CO, CO2 and CH4; (5) char only contains
carbon and ash, and tar formation is neglected [21,22].
In the simulation, the Peng-Robinson equation of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function
(PR-BM) is used to derive the basic thermodynamic properties of the system [23]. As a whole,
the reaction zones are represented by a number of blocks. The fuels are defined as an unconventional
component, based on the results of elemental analysis and proximate analysis. Because of the
nonconventional stream for the biomass, the biomass must be defined using the HCOALGEN model,
including a number of empirical correlations for heat of combustion, heat of formation, and heat
capacity. The density of biomass is evaluated by the DCOALIGT model [23]. A schematic of the BSG
process is shown in Figure 1.
H 2O
HeatX
8 (product gas)

RGibbs 10 11
Mixer
WGS
1 (fuels) 2 3 6 7
SSplit
SMR
RYield
RStoic
Q1 Q2 Q3

9 (char)
4 (water) 5 (steam)

Heater

Q4

Figure 1. Flow chart of the steam gasification process.

When the “fuels” (stream 1) are fed into the system, the first step is the heating and drying of the
biomass. The block RStoic is used to model the drying process. The process of drying is simulated by
the following chemical reaction [24]:
Fuel  0.0555H 2O  fuel dry (1)
After drying, the fuel is decomposed into its elemental constituents in the block RYield. In this block,
the unconventional stream (stream 2) transforms from an unconventional solid into volatiles and char
(stream 3). The volatiles consist of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. In addition, the char is
converted into ash and carbon. The actual yield distributions in RYield are calculated by a calculator
block which is controlled by the FORTRAN statement in accordance with the component characteristics
of the feedstock. The gasification of biomass is simulated by a block called RGibbs, in which the
chemical equilibrium calculations are performed by minimizing the Gibbs free energy. With regard to
the gasifying agents, water (stream 4) is heated in the block Heater to become steam (stream 5). The
product gas is divided into two streams product gas (stream 8) and char (stream 9), in the block SSPLIT.
The product gas is cooled by a heat exchanger in order to reach the desired inlet temperature (550 °C) in
the following plug flow reactor (WGS). Subsequently, a high-temperature water-gas-shift (WGS) reactor
directly connects to the outlet stream (stream 10) to reduce CO and produce rich-hydrogen gas (stream 11).
Energies 2015, 8 97

The water-gas-shift (WGS) reactor with a packed catalyst is connected to convert some of the
components, CO and H2O, into CO2 and H2. The WGS reaction over the CeO2-La2O3-based Cu catalyst
at atmospheric pressure and a reaction temperature in the 500–600 °C range is:
Cat
CO  H 2 O  CO2  H 2 , H 0  42 kJ mol 1 (2)
The corresponding rate of reaction is expressed by [25]:
 92350 0.95 0.06 0.085 1 PCO2 PH 2
rWGS  10 0.724 exp( ) PCO PCO2 PH 2 (1  ) (3)
RT K PCO PH 2O

where K is the equilibrium constant of the WGS reaction.

2.1. Model Validation

The model tests for the validation of the biomass gasification process have been carried out in a
previous study [13]. In order to be able to examine the model developed in this simulation, the model
results are compared to results obtained by Jayah et al. In their experiments, the feedstock used in their
study is rubber wood in a fixed bed gasifier operated at atmospheric pressure (1 atm) along with the
gasification temperature of 900 °C. Table 1 shows the comparisons of results between the predictions
and the experimental data as reported by Jayah et al. [26]. It can be seen that the predicted results
of the three gases at various air-to-fuel mass flow rate ratios are in good agreement with the
experimental measurements.

Table 1. The comparison of predicted results with the experimental data from [26].
Gas composition (vol %)
Air/fuel ratio Measurement
H2 CO CO2
2.03 Experimental 17.20 19.60 9.90
Model 18.64 21.14 9.90
Relative error (%) 8.37 7.86 0
2.20 Experimental 18.30 20.20 9.70
Model 17.26 20.59 10.00
Relative error (%) 5.68 1.93 3.09
2.37 Experimental 17.20 19.40 9.70
Model 15.85 19.57 10.39
Relative error (%) 7.85 0.88 7.11

2.2. Mass Balance

Based on the mass balance, the global gasification reaction is written as:
CH x O y N z  w H 2 O  nCO2 CO2  n CO CO  nCH4 CH 4  nH 2 H 2  nH 2O H 2 O  ncharChar (4)
where w is the amount of steam per mole of biomass; nCO2 , nCO , nCH4 , n H 2 , n H 2O and nchar are the
numbers of moles of CO2, CO, CH4 H2, H2O, and char, respectively. The major chemical reactions
occurring in the gasifier are listed in Table 2 [2,27].
Energies 2015, 8 98

Table 2. A list of chemical reactions in the gasifier [2,27].

Reaction Process Reaction number
Drying H 2Ol   H 2O g  , H 0  40.7 kJ mol 1 R1
Devolatilization CH x Oy N z  char  volatile gases R2
1
C  0.5 O2  CO, H  268 kJ mol 0
R3
Oxidation
C  O2  CO2 , H 0  406 kJ mol 1 R4
Water gas reaction C  H 2O  CO  H 2 , H 0  131.4 kJ mol 1 R5
Boudouard reaction C  CO2  2 CO, H 0  172.6 kJ mol 1 R6
1
Shift reaction CO  H 2 O  CO2  H 2 , H  42 kJ mol 0
R7
1
C  2 H 2  CH 4 , H  75 kJ mol 0
R8
Methanation reaction
CH 4  H 2O  CO  3H 2 , H 0  206 kJ mol 1 R9

The fuels are expressed by CHxOyNz where the subscripts x, y, and z are determined from the
elemental analysis of biomass. As a result, each elemental mass-balance in the system can be expressed
in the following equations:
Carbon balance:
nCO2  nCO  nCH4  nchar  1  0 (5)

Hydrogen balance:
4nCH4  2nH2  2nH2O  2w  x  0 (6)

Oxygen balance:
2nCO2  nCO  nH 2O  w  y  0 (7)

2.3. Energy Balance

The energy balance between the reactants and the products is calculated based on the
following equations:

 Hin
i  Q rxn   H j
out
(8)

 H
in
i  Q rxn  H biomass  H agent
(9)

 H
out
j  H productgas  H ash  H char
(10)

where  H
in
i and  H
out
j are the enthalpy rates of the input and output material streams, respectively.

All inputs on the left-hand side of Equation (8) are at 25 °C. The outputs on the right-hand side are at
the gasification temperature. H biomass , H agent , H productgas , H ash , and H char are the rates of the heat of
the formation of biomass, gasifying agents, gaseous products, ash, and char, respectively, and Q is rxn

the rate of the heat of the reaction.

Energies 2015, 8 99

3. Results and Discussion

Two kinds of biomass are selected as the feedstock in this work, raw oil palm (ROP), and torrefied
oil palm (TOP). The oil palm was torrefied at 250 °C for one hour. The properties of the feedstock, such
as the results of the proximate analysis, elemental analysis, and higher heating values (HHV) are listed
in Table 3 [28]. The BSG process is performed at 700 °C and 1 atm [29–31]. The parameter of
steam-to-carbon mass ratio (S/C ratio) is considered to account for influences that the feedstock has on
the BSG process. Details of the operation and process conditions are given in Table 4.

Table 3. Proximate and elemental analyses of the feedstock used in the simulation [28].
Feedstocks Raw oil palm Torrefied oil palm at 250 °C
Proximate analysis (wt%)
Moisture 7.20 3.69
Volatile matter (VM) 67.25 53.76
Fixed carbon (FC) 19.03 32.58
Ash 6.52 9.97
Elemental analysis (wt%)
C 44.81 54.41
H 4.10 4.54
N 2.10 1.54
O* 42.47 29.62
Higher heating value (MJ kg−1) 17.10 20.59
Note: * By difference.

Table 4. Simulation of operating condition and gasification parameters.

Items Parameters
Stream class MCINCPSD
Thermodynamic property Peng-Robinson
Enthalpy HCOALGEN
Nonconventional properties
Density DCOALIGT
Raw oil palm CH1.10O0.71N0.040
Feedstocks
Torrefied oil palm (250 °C) CH1.00O0.41N0.024
Ambient conditions 25 °C and 1 atm
Fuel: 25 °C and 1 atm
Input conditions
Steam: 200 °C and 1 atm
Gasifier 700 °C and 1 atm
Sensitivity analysis S/C ratio (mass flow rate) 0.4–2

3.1. Effect of S/C Ratio

Figure 2 shows the concentration distributions of H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 (dry basis) in the product
gas with respect to the S/C ratio. When ROP is gasified, the addition of steam has a positive effect on
the H2 formation, in that it monotonically increases along with the S/C ratio (Figure 2a). This behavior
can be explained by the water gas reaction (R5). In contrast, the concentration of CO decreases as the
S/C ratio increases (Figure 2b).
Energies 2015, 8 100

60 40

55 35

CO (vol%)
H 2 (vol%)

50 30

45 ROP 25
TOP

40 20
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C S/C

(a) (b)
25 5

20 4
CH 4 (vol%)
CO2 (vol%)

15 3

10 2

5 1

0 0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C S/C ratio

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Effects of the S/C ratio on product distribution of (a) H2; (b) CO; (c) CO2;
and (d) CH4.

This may be due to the shift reaction where the generated CO further reacts with steam to produce
CO2 and H2. With regard to the gasification of TOP, the H2 formation is characterized by a decrease
followed by an increase when the S/C ratio increases. This could be due to the high carbon content in
TOP (Table 3). Notably, the concentration of H2 of TOP is higher than that of ROP, no matter what S/C
ratio is used. The minimum H2 concentration from the gasification of TOP is located at S/C = 1.4.
In contrast, CO formation has the opposite trend to that seen with H2. The maximum CO concentration
of TOP is thus also located at S/C = 1.4. Examining the CO2 concentration of the two cases shown in
Figure 2c, it can be seen that that ROP is higher than that of TOP. Since ROP contains a significant
amount of oxygen (Table 3), this means that more CO2 is produced than in the gasification of TOP due
to the oxidation reaction (R3 and R4). Moreover, it is also noted that the CO2 concentration of ROP and
TOP increase when the S/C ratio is over 1.0 and 1.4, respectively. In general, steam can be thought of
as an oxidizer in a gasification environment. The higher the S/C ratio, the more oxidizer provided for
gasificaiton. Therefore, more CO2 can be generated because the concentration of CO2 rises along with
the S/C ratio through a shift reaction (R7), which decreases the CO concentration. With regard to the
concentration of CH4, Figure 2d depicts its concentration of ROP and TOP drops rapidly as the S/C ratio
Energies 2015, 8 101

increases. The decrease in CH4 can be attributed mainly to R7 and R9 while an increase was observed
in H2 and CO2 [31].
The effects of the S/C ratio on the solid yield and hydrogen yield are illustrated in Figure 3a,b,
respectively. Since TOP contains more carbon than ROP (Table 3), more unconverted carbon is
observed. As a result, in order to complete the carbon conversion, ROP and TOP should be used at the
S/C ratios of 1.0 and 1.4, respectively.
In examining the distributions of hydrogen yield, Figure 3b shows that it increases when the oil palm
is torrefied. In comparison to ROP, the hydrogen yield from the gasification of TOP is increased by
approximately13%–31%. The maximum hydrogen yields of ROP and TOP are found to be 95.46 and
124.97 g/kg, respectively, with a S/C ratio of 2. A higher S/C ratio increases H2 production because of
the water gas reaction (R5 and R7) and steam methanation (R8 and R9). These changes in the hydrogen
yield are consistent with the results of experiments in Kaewpanha et al. [32] and the thermodynamic
analysis carried out Vivanpatarakij and Assabumrungrat [33].
60 150

50
120
Hydrogen yield (g kg-fuel-1)

ROP
Solid yield (kg kg-fuel-1)

TOP
40
90

30

60
20

30
10

0 0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C S/C

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Effects of the S/C ratio on (a) solid yield and (b) hydrogen yield.

Figure 4 shows the lower heating value (LHV, MJ/Nm3) of the product gas, which is expressed as [20]:

LHVproductgas  3.0 0 xCO  2.57 xH2  8.54 xCH4  4.2  (11)
where x stands for the mole fraction of gas species in the product gas (dry basis). As mentioned earlier,
the char of ROP and TOP react completely with steam when the S/C ratio is more than 1.0 and 1.4,
respectively. Once excess steam is introduced, a sharp decrease in LHV is observed, especially for ROP.
Similar results were also observed in Chaudhari et al. [29], and Yan et al. [30]. In addition, the shift
reaction (R7) lowers the CO concentration in the product gas (Figure 2b). This is also the reason why
the LHV drops significantly when the S/C ratio is more than 1.0 and 1.4 for ROP and TOP, respectively.
However, the LHV of the product gas can be improved by using TOP as the feedstock, and it is in the
range of 9.67–10.98 MJ/Nm3.
Energies 2015, 8 102

12

11

LHV (MJ Nm -3)

10

9
ROP
TOP

8
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C ratio

Figure 4. Effects of the S/C ratio on distributions of lower heating value.

3.2. Cold Gas Efficiency and System Energetic Efficiency

The cold gas efficiency (CGE) is a crucial index to account for the performance of biomass
gasification, and it is defined as [14,16]:
GP  LHVproductgas
CGE (%)   100% (12)
HHV fuel  Qtorrefaction

where Gp is the volume of the product gas from the gasification of per unit weight of fuel
(Nm3/kg-fuel), and HHVfuel is the higher heating value of the fuel (MJ/kg-fuel), respectively.
When ROP is torrefied at 250 °C, the heat needed to carry out torrefaction is also considered in the
equation. Therefore, in the study of Granados et al. [34], they evaluated that the heat needed to perform
oil palm fiber torrefaction was Qtorrefaction= 2320 kJ/kg. The effect of the S/C ratio on CGE is shown in
Figure 5a. The CGE of the BSG process is in the range of 62.7%–88.5% for ROP and 43.71%–95.45%
for TOP, respectively. Moreover, this suggests that an optimum value can be obtained. The maximum
values are developed at S/C ratios of 1.0 and 1.4 for ROP and TOP, respectively. Subsequently, a higher
S/C ratio lessens the value of CGE, due to the reduction of LHV (Figure 4). When ROP is torrefied at
250 °C, the CGE values are enhanced by approximately 3.7%–15.7%.
In addition to CGE, the system energetic efficiency ( SEE |I ) align of the BSG process is also analyzed,
and this defined as:
m productgas  GP  LHV productgas
SEE |I (%)   100% (13)
m fuel  HHV  Q  m H  Q
furl rxn s s torrefaction

where m syngas and m fuel are the mass flow rates of product gas and fuel (kg/hr); Q rxn is the energy
required to generate steam and heat the reactor (MJ/hr); Q torrefaction is the energy required during the
torrefaction pretreatment (MJ/hr); m s is the mass flow rate of steam (kg/hr); and H s is the change in
enthalpy of the steam.
Figure 5b shows that when the S/C ratio is higher than 1.2, the SEE |I of TOP is always greater than
that of ROP. The values are enhanced by approximately 8.4%–8.8%, and the maximum values for ROP
and TOP are 73.38 and 74.03, respectively.
Energies 2015, 8 103

100 80

70

80

SEE|I (%)
CGE (%)

60

60 ROP
TOP
50

40 40
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C S/C

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Effects of the S/C ratio on distributions of (a) cold gas efficiency;
(b) system energetic efficiency.

3.3. BSG Process with Heat Recovery

From the above observations, it is apparent that the hydrogen yield and SEE are significantly
improved by the torrefaction pretreatment. However, if the S/C ratio is below 1.2, the SEE of TOP is
lower than that of ROP. To enhance the SEE when TOP is operated at a lower S/C ratio (S/C < 1.2),
a heat integration design that uses a heat recovery method is implemented in a BSG process (design II).
As shown in Figure 6, a combustor (zone B) is used to react with the remaining residual char, and thus
the combustion heat (QC) can recover the whole process to enhance the SEE.
H 2O
HeatX
8 (product gas)

RGibbs
Mixer
10
1(fuels) 2 3 6 7
SSplit 11
RStoic RYield SMR Steam WGS

Q1 Q2
12 (water) 13 (steam )
Q3
4 (water) 5 (steam) Q5
9 (char)
Heater

RGibbs
Q4 Zone A QC Zone B

Figure 6. Flow chart of the steam gasification process with heat recovery.

On the other hand, TOP has a relatively high content of CO in the product gas compared to that of
ROP when the S/C ratio is beyond 1.2 (Figure 2). Therefore, to enhance the hydrogen production from
TOP, design II introduces another water stream (stream 12) that is fed into the mixer. This is used to
provide extra steam (stream 13) to react with the remaining CO in the WGS reactor and produce more
hydrogen gas.
The effects of the amount of steam (stream 13) on the hydrogen yield are presented in Figure 7a,b.
These show that increasing the amount of steam (stream 13) increases the hydrogen yield, no matter
Energies 2015, 8 104

which fuels are used. This is a consequence of more hydrogen being produced from both the water gas
and shift reactions (R5 and R7). However, it can be seen that the increase in the hydrogen yield of TOP
is greater than that of ROP, especially when the S/C ratio is over 1.2. The maximum increase in hydrogen
yield is 34.90% when the ROP is torrefied. As previously mentioned, this is because the CO
concentration of TOP is greater than that of ROP, and this is responsible for the improvement in
hydrogen yield.

200

100.0
95.0 200

90.0 130.0
Hydrogen yield (g kg-fuel-1)

85.0 120.0
150
80.0 110.0
100.0

Hydrogen2yield (g kg-fuel-1)
150
75.0
90.0
70.0
80.0
100
65.0
70.0
60.0
100 60.0
55.0
50.0
50
50

2
2
0 1.5 1.6
50 0
50
40
30 1
S /C 40 1.2
C
S/
20 Steam 30
10 0.5
S team (s 0 (strea 20 0.8
tream 13 m 1 3 ) (k 10
) (kg hr-1) g hr -1 0 0.4
)

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Three-dimensional distributions of hydrogen yield from the gasification of

(a) ROP; and (b) TOP.

With regard to the efficiency of the BSG process with heat recovery, the system energetic efficiency
( SEE |II ) is taken into account again, and the equation is defined as follows:
m productgas  GP  LHV productgas
SEE |II (%)   100% (14)
m fuel  HHV  Q  m H  Q
furl rxn s s

torrefaction  Qchar

where Q char is the energy produced from combustion of the remaining residual char from the gasification
process (MJ/hr).
In the definition of SEE |II , Q char contributes to BSG process system energy. Figure 8 shows the
SEE |II of ROP and TOP changes with the S/C ratio and amount of steam, where the maximum values
of SEE |II appear at 70.44 (S/C = 0.8) and 72.62% (S/C ratio = 1.2), respectively.
Energies 2015, 8 105

100 100

72.00
70.00 70.00
80
68.00 80 68.00
66.00 66.00
64.00 64.00
62.00 62.00
60 60
60.00

SEE|II (%)
SEE|II (%)

60.00
58.00 58.00
56.00 56.00
40 54.00 40

52.00

20 20
0 0
-1 ) -1 )
10 hr 10 hr
(kg ( kg
0
2
20
1 3) 0
2 20
13
)
1.6 30
a m 1.6 30 m
1.2 re 1.2 rea
S /C 0.8
40 (st S /C 0.8
40 (st
m m
0.4 50 ea 0.4 50 ea
St St

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Three-dimensional distributions of system energetic efficiency from the

gasification of (a) ROP; and (b) TOP.

However, if more steam is blown into the gasification system then this leads to a decrease in SEE |II .
A comparison between design I and design II of the TOP BSG process is shown in Figure 9. The SEE |II
is amplified by a factor of 2.49%–44.61% when the S/C ratio is below 1.2. Therefore, design II can be
used to enhance the system energetic efficiency from the steam gasification process of TOP.
80

70
SEE (%)

60

Design I
Design II
50

40
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
S/C

Figure 9. Effects of the S/C ratio on the system energetic efficiency of the two designs.

Table 5 gives the hydrogen yield and SEE values for the two designs. For design I, the increasing
factors of hydrogen yield and SEE are 19.77% and −0.44%, respectively, when TOP is used as feedstock.
Compared to the results for design I, the hydrogen yield of design II is further improved from 79.04 to
85.52 g/kg-fuel and 94.67 to 103.84 g/kg-fuel, corresponding to ROP and TOP, respectively. Although
the SEE of design II may be reduced due to energy consumption to produce the extra steam (stream 13),
the increasing factor of hydrogen can be raised from 19.77% to 21.42%.
Energies 2015, 8 106

Table 5. Hydrogen yield and SEE at the S/C ratio of 1.2.

Process Design I Design II (stream 13 = 20 kg/hr)
Feedstocks ROP TOP ROP TOP
Hydrogen yield (g/kg feedstock) 79.04 94.67 85.52 103.84
Increasing factor * (%) - 19.77 - 21.42
SEE (%) 70.68 70.37 60.62 66.74
Increasing factor * (%) - −0.44 - 10.10
Torrefied oil palm  Raw oil palm
Note: * Increasing factor  100 .
Raw oil palm

3.4. Process Optimization

The results presented above show that using TOP as feedstock in the BSG process is favorable with
regard to producing rich hydrogen gas. To obtain the optimum operating conditions from TOP;
an optimization process is carried out to improve the process performance and maximize the process
profitability. Therefore; the optimization of the maximum SEE of the BSG process subject to constraint
equations is defined in terms of two manipulated variables via FORTRAN code. The following
optimization algorithm for maximizing the SEE of designs I and II is described by:
max J i  SEE |i , i  I, II
uij (15)

subject to:
a j  uij  b j j  1,2 (16)
 m s
0.4  S C  2 (17)
m carbon

where SEE |i , is denoted as the objective (Ji) of design I and design II, and uij   ms , mcarbon i represents
T

the steady-state operating conditions. To determine the optimal steady-state operating conditions, first
the lower and upper bounds of uij , a i and bi , are given in Table 6.

Table 6. Bounds of manipulated variables.

ui , j aj bj
uI,1  m s (kg / hr ) 0 120
uI, 2  m carbon(kg / hr ) 44.81 54.41
uII,1  m s (kg / hr ) 0 120
uII, 2  m carbon(kg / hr ) 44.81 54.41
uIII, 3  m s (kg / hr ) 0 120
uIII, 4  m carbon(kg / hr ) 44.81 54.41
uIII, 5  m stream13(kg / hr ) 0 50
Energies 2015, 8 107

Using the sequential quadratic programming (SQP) method in the Aspen Plus environment, the
optimal solutions are obtained by solving the optimization algorithm, which is bounded by specific
constraints in Equation (17). As a result, if the maximum LHV of the product gas is achieved,
i.e., LHVproductgas  LHVproductgas, max , then the corresponding SEE |I would be close to the maximum
value. Regarding design II, the maximum SEE is achieved by adjusting the variables, LHVproductgas and
Q , respectively.
cahr

When the optimization of design I and design II is treated as the design specification, Figure 10 shows
the profiles of the SEE of BSG process. The corresponding optimal operating condition is the S/C ratio
of 1.36, and the maximum SEE values are 74.43% and 72.96%, corresponding to design I and design II,
respectively. Moreover, the values of the proposed system before and after optimization are given in
Table 7. Based on these optimal conditions, the increasing factor of SEE is 0.54% and 0.65%,
corresponding to design I and design II, respectively. Although the optimization of design II cannot
ensure a higher maximum SEE than the design I, design II can cause a significant increase in SEE when
the S/C ratio is below 1.2 (Figure 9).
80

74.43
72.96
70
SEE (%)

60

50
Design I
Design II

40
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.36 1.6 2
S/C

Figure 10. Optimization of SEE for the steam gasification process using torrefied oil palm.

Table 7. The results of BSG process from TOP before and after optimization.
Design I Design II
Process Before After Before After
optimization optimization optimization optimization
S/C ratio 1.4 1.36 1.4 1.36
SEE (%) 74.03 74.43 72.49 72.96
Increasing factor * (%) - 0.54 - 0.65
Hydrogen yield (g/kg feedstock) 104.18 102.53 104.20 102.59
Increasing factor * (%) - −1.58 - −1.54
After optimization  Before optimization
Note: * Increasing factor   100 .
Before optimization

The optimal operating conditions are usually based on the objective of a higher SEE. However,
the maximization of hydrogen yield is another objective of this BSG process for design II. It aims to
Energies 2015, 8 108

reach the maximum hydrogen yield by introducing an extra steam stream (stream 13) and keeping the
SEE value of design II up to at least 0.7. The optimization algorithm is expressed by:
FH2
max J III  (18)
uIII FHid2

subject to:
a j  uIII, j  b j j  3,4,5 (19)
 ms
0.4  S C  2 (20)
mcarbon

0.7  SEE (21)

T
where FHid2 is denoted as the theoretical H2 production rate; uIII   ms , mcarbon , mstream13  represent
III

adjustable variables. Similarly, the upper and lower bounds of uIII are shown in Table 6.
The S/C ratio of 1.36 and steam (stream 13) at 18 kg hr−1 will be the optimal operating conditions in
terms of J III . The maximum hydrogen yield is 111.05 g/kg-fuel and the value of SEE is 70.24%. The
optimization of the BSG process (design II) in this way can thus enhance hydrogen production and
ensure a high SEE.

4. Conclusions

The study presented a conceptual design of the BSG process using an Aspen Plus simulator.
The results show that the optimum conditions of ROP and TOP are at the S/C ratios of 1.0 and 1.4,
respectively. Under these conditions, a maximum SEE of 73.38% and a hydrogen yield of
72.74 g/kg-fuel are achieved from ROP steam gasification. The SEE and hydrogen yield values can be
enhanced when ROP undergoes torrefaction at 250 °C. Accordingly, TOP is recommended to produce
hydrogen enriched gas. To enhance the SEE from TOP, a heat recovery step is added to the BSG process.
With regard to the heat recovery design, the SEE of TOP is amplified by a factor of 2.49%–44.61%
when the S/C ratio is below 1.2. Therefore, this design can be used to enhance the system energetic
efficiency from the steam gasification process of torrefied oil palm. Finally, the optimum S/C ratio is
1.36, based on the optimal strategy for maximizing the SEE.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China for
its partial financial support of this research under grant MOST 103-2221-E-006-251.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Energies 2015, 8 109

References

1. Howaniec, N.; Smolinski, A. Steam co-gasification of coal and biomass-Synergy in reactivity of

fuel blends chars. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2013, 38, 16152–16160.
2. Taba, L.E.; Irfan, M.F.; Daud, W.A.M.W.; Chakrabarti, M.H. The effect of temperature on various
parameters in coal, biomass and CO-gasification: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16,
5584–5596.
3. Trippe, F.; Fröhling, M.; Schultmann, F.; Stahl, R.; Henrich, E. Techno-economic assessment of
gasification as a process step within biomass-to-liquid (BtL) fuel and chemicals production.
Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92, 2169–2184.
4. Balat, M.; Balat, M.; Kırtay, E.; Balat, H. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of biomass into
fuels and chemicals. Part 2: Gasification systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 3158–3168.
5. Normann, F.; Thunman, H.; Johnsson, F. Process analysis of an oxygen lean oxy-fuel power plant
with co-production of synthesis gas. Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 279–286.
6. Pentananunt, R.; Rahman, A.N.M.M.; Bhattacharya, S.C. Upgrading of biomass by means of
torrfaction. Energy 1990, 15, 1175–1179.
7. Phanphanich, M.; Mani, S. Impact of torrefaction on the grindability and fuel characteristics of
forest biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 1246–1253.
8. Chen, W.H.; Kuo, P.C. Torrefaction and co-torrefaction characterization of hemicellulose, cellulose
and lignin as well as torrefaction of some basic constituents in biomass. Energy 2011, 36, 803–811.
9. Mani, S.; Tabil, L.G.; Sokhansanj, S. Grinding performance and physical properties of wheat and
barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 27, 339–352.
10. Chew, J.J.; Doshi, V. Recent advances in biomass pretreatment-Torrefaction fundamentals and
Technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4212–4222.
11. van der Stelet, M.J.C.; Gerhauser, H.; Kiel, J.H.A.; Ptasinski, K.J. Biomass upgrading by
torrefaction for the production of biofuels: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3748–3762.
12. Chen, Q.; Zhou, J.S.; Liu, B.J.; Mei, Q.F.; Luo, Z.Y. Influence of torrefaction pretreatment on
biomass gasification technology. Chinese Sci. Bull. 2011, 56, 1449–1456.
13. Kuo, P.C.; Wu, W.; Chen, W.H. Gasification performances of raw and torrefied biomass in a
downdraft fixed bed gasifier using thermodynamic analysis. Fuel 2013, 117, 1231–1241.
14. Sarkar, M.; Kumar, A.; Tumuluru, J.S.; Patil, K.N.; Bellmer, D.D. Gasification performance of
switchgrass pretreated with torrefaction and densification. Appl. Energy 2014, 127, 194–201.
15. Berrueco, C.; Recari, J.; Matas Güell, B.; del Alamo, C. Pressurized gasification of torrefied woody
biomass in a lab scale fluidized bed. Energy 2014, 70, 68–78.
16. Weiland, F.; Nordwaeger, M.; Olofsson, I.; Wiinikka, H.; Nordin, A. Entrained flow gasification of
torrefied wood residues. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 125, 51–58.
17. Nipattummakul, N.; Ahmed, I.I.; Kerdsuwan, S.; Gupta, A.K. Hydrogen and syngas production
from sewage sludge via steam gasification. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 11738–11745.
18. Hernández, J.J.; Aranda, G.; Barba, J.; Mendoza, J.M. Effect of steam content in the air-steam flow
on biomass entrained flow gasification. Fuel Process. Technol. 2012, 99, 43–55.
19. Franco, C.; Pinto, F.; Gulyurtlu, I.; Cabrita, I. The study of reactions influencing the biomass steam
gasification process. Fuel 2003, 82, 835–842.
Energies 2015, 8 110

20. Lv, P.M.; Xiong, Z.H.; Chang, J.; Wu, C.Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, J.X. An experimental study on biomass
air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95, 95–101.
21. Schuster, G.; Loffler, G.; Weigl, K.; Hofbauer, H. Biomass steam gasificationan-extensive
parametric modeling study. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 71–79.
22. Doherty, W.; Reynolds, A.; Kennedy, D. Aspen plus simulation of biomass gasification in a steam
blown dual fluidised bed. In Materials and Processes for Energy: Communicating Current Research
and Technological Developments; Méndez-Vilas, A., Ed.; Formatex Research Centre: Badajoz,
Spain, 2013.
23. Ramzan, N.; Ashraf, A.; Naveed, S.; Malik, A. Simulation of hybrid biomass gasification using
Aspen plus: A comparative performance analysis for food, municipal solid and poultry waste.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3962–3969.
24. Chen, X.; Zheng, D.; Guo, J.; Liu, J.; Ji, P. Energy analysis for low-rank coal based process system
to co-produce semicoke, syngas and light oil. Energy 2013, 52, 279–288.
25. Hla, S.S.; Morpeth, L.D.; Sun,Y.; Duffy, G.J.; Ilyushechkin, A.Y.; Roberts, D.G.; Edwards, J.H.
A CeO2–La2O3-based Cu catalyst for the processing of coal-derived syngases via high-temperature
water–gas shift reaction. Fuel 2013, 114, 178–186.
26. Jayah, T.H.; Aye, L.; Fuller, R.J.; Stewart, D.F. Computer simulation of a downdraft wood gasier
for tea drying. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 459–469.
27. Gao, N.; Li, A.; Quan, C.; Gao, F. Hydrogen-rich gas production from biomass steam gasification
in an updraft fixed-bed gasifier combined with a porous ceramic reformer. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
2008, 33, 5430–5438.
28. Chen, W.H.; Du, S.W.; Tsai, C.H.; Wang, Z.Y. Torrefied biomasses in a drop tube furnace to
evaluate their utility in blast furnaces. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 433–438.
29. Chaudhari, S.T.; Bej, S.K.; Bakhshi, N.N.; Dalai, A.K. Steam gasification of biomass-derived char
for the production of carbon monoxide-rich synthesis gas. Energy Fuels 2001, 15, 736–742.
30. Yan, F.; Luo, S.Y.; Hu, Z.Q.; Xiao, B.; Cheng, G. Hydrogen-rich gas production by steam
gasification of char from biomass fast pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor: Influence of temperature and
steam on hydrogen yield and syngas composition. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5633–5637.
31. Sattar, A.; Leeke, G.A.; Hornung, A.; Wood, J. Steam gasification of rapeseed, wood, sewage
sludge and miscanthus biochars for the production of a hydrogen-rich syngas. Biomass Bioenergy
2014, 69, 276–286.
32. Kaewpanha, M.; Guan, G.; Hao, X.; Wang, Z.; Kasai, Y.; Kusakabe, K.; Abudula, A. Steam
co-gasification of brown seaweed and land-based biomass. Fuel Process. Technol. 2014, 120, 106–112.
33. Vivanpatarakij, S.; Assabumrungrat, S. Thermodynamic analysis of combined unit of biomass
gasifier and tar steam reformer for hydrogen production and tar removal. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
2013, 38, 3930–3936.
34. Granados, D.A.; Vel asquez, H.I.; Chejne, F. Energetic and exergetic evaluation of residual biomass
in a torrefaction process. Energy 2014, 74, 181–189.

© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).