Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

New solar-biomass power generation system integrated a two-stage

gasifier
Zhang Bai a,b, Qibin Liu a,b,⇑, Jing Lei c, Hui Hong a,b, Hongguang Jin a,b
a
Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China
c
School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

A new solar-biomass power generation system is proposed.

Endothermic reactions of the biomass gasification are driven by solar energy.

The thermodynamic properties of the system are numerically investigated.

The superiorities of the proposed system are validated.

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

Article history: A new solar-biomass power generation system that integrates a two-stage gasifier is proposed in this
Received 5 March 2016 paper. In this system, two different types of solar collectors, concentrating solar thermal energy at differ-
Received in revised form 3 June 2016 ent temperature levels, are applied to drive solar-biomass thermochemical processes of pyrolysis (at
Accepted 17 June 2016
about 643 K) and gasification (at about 1150 K) for production of solar fuel. The produced solar fuel,
Available online 27 June 2016
namely gasified syngas, is directly utilized by an advanced combined cycle system for power generation.
Numerical simulations are implemented to evaluate the on-design and off-design thermodynamic perfor-
Keywords:
mances of the system. Results indicate that the proposed system can achieve an overall energy efficiency
Solar energy
Solar thermochemistry
of 27.93% and a net solar-to-electric efficiency of 19.89% under the nominal condition. The proposed two-
Two-stage biomass gasification stage solar-biomass gasification routine exhibits improved system thermodynamic performance com-
Power generation pared to that in one-stage gasification technical mode, and the provided heat resource is in a good match
Thermodynamics evaluation with the requirements for the biomass gasification procedure. Under given simulation conditions in this
paper, the energy level upgrade ratio in the proposed two-stage solar-biomass gasification system for the
introduced solar thermal energy is as high as 32.35% compared to 21.62% in one-stage gasification mode.
Meanwhile, the daily average net solar-to-electric efficiency on the representative days reaches to the
range of 8.88–19.04%, while that of 9.97–15.71% in one-stage model. The research findings provide a
promising approach for efficient utilization of the abundant solar and biomass resources in western
China and reduction of CO2 emission.
Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction developed to concentrate solar energy at different temperature

levels [5–8]. Currently concentrating solar power (CSP) technolo-
Renewable energies, including solar energy and biomass, con- gies have been widely applied to generate power in addition to
tribute to the alleviation of current energy and environment con- photovoltaic (PV) technology [9–12]. Thermal energy concentrated
cerns due to the features of clean utilization and abundant storage by solar collectors is used to heat feed-water to superheated steam
[1–4]. directly or through a heat transfer fluid (i.e., synthetic oil or molten
Various types of solar collectors, including flat plate collector, salt) and then the superheated steam drives the steam turbine for
parabolic trough collector, solar tower and dish receiver, have been power generation. Due to the uneven temporal and spatial distri-
bution of solar energy, storage of solar energy using molten salt
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese or other phase change materials are investigated [13–17]. Addi-
Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China. tionally, an emerging technology in solar thermal utilization use
E-mail address: [email protected] (Q. Liu). compressed air as heat transfer medium. The first prototype of a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.081
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319 311

Nomenclature

A energy level (pre-exponential factor) # reaction heat factor

E exergy (kJ mol1 or kJ kg1)
H enthalpy (kJ mol1 or kJ kg1) Subscript
HHV high heat value (kJ kg1) ASU air separation unit
m mass flow rate (kg s1) aux auxiliary devices
Q heat (kW) bio biomass
R the gas constant (8.314 J/(K mol)) CC combined cycle
S heliostat area (m2) day daily accumulated or averaged
t time net net output power
T temperature (K) opt optical
W electric power (kW) parasitic parasitic consumption
ref reference system
Greek letters solar solar energy
a reaction conversion rate sol-elec solar-to-electric
b heating rate (K min1) sys system
g efficiency (%) th thermal

solar powered gas turbine system was tested in 2002 without the gasification agent (e.g. CO2 or steam) to produce non-
major problems, and many investigations on the related issues condensable syngas [37–39]. Generally, the biomass preheat and
have been conducted subsequently [18–20]. pyrolysis steps can be implemented under a mid-temperature con-
The inherent properties of solar energy, such as low energy den- dition of lower than 673 K. However, most previous publications
sity and intermittency, provide difficulty in keeping the thermody- only used point focus collectors to concentrate high-temperature
namic and economic performances of the solar devices at a high thermal energy to drive the gasification process, which has a rela-
level. Solar thermochemical utilization is a promising solution to tively high energy loss and capital investment compared to low-
these limitations. Among current solar thermochemical utilization temperature line focus collectors such as parabolic collectors, and
technologies, solar driven biomass gasification has also attracted more exergy loss due to higher temperature difference between
considerable attention [21,22]. solar energy source and biomass preheat and pyrolysis chemical
Biomass is another type of renewable energy that can be uti- reaction.
lized through chemical reactions such as combustion, pyrolysis Therefore, the thermal heat resources should be introduced cor-
and gasification to produce heat, tar and syngas, respectively. In respondingly to the individual temperature requirement of each
particular, gasification is one of the most important technique for reaction procedure. A two-stage gasification concept, i.e., using
processing biomass. While, in gasification, reaction heat from bio- high-temperature heat resource to drive the biomass gasification,
mass in-situ combustion is needed to drive a set of endothermic mid-temperature solar thermal energy for biomass preheating
thermochemical conversion reactions for the production of syngas and pyrolysis procedures, is an effective solution. Naturally, the
(a mixture composed of H2 and CO) [23–25]. Therefore, it is possi- main objectives of this work include proposing a two-stage solar-
ble to introduce solar thermal energy into the thermochemical biomass gasification concept, developing a novel solar-biomass
reaction of biomass gasification in order to achieve more efficient hybrid power generation system, and assessing performances of
biomass utilization. In the process of solar-biomass gasification, the solar thermochemical conversion process and the developed
concentrated solar energy is introduced to provide high- system. The main contributions are summarized as follows:
temperature heat resource for driving the biomass gasification
reaction, in which solar thermal energy, with an amount equal to (1) A novel hybrid power generation system integrated with a
the enthalpy change of the endothermic reactions, is converted two-stage solar-biomass gasification process is proposed
into the chemical energy of the syngas and low-carbon footprint for effective utilization of solar energy and biomass. The pro-
transportation fuels [22]. It is worth mentioning that biomass is posed system reduces fossil fuel consumption and mitigates
composed of carbohydrates with high volatile content and exhibits CO2 emission.
favorable reactivity. More importantly, the hybridized solar energy (2) In the proposed system, two solar collection devices are
and biomass are renewable which contribute to CO2 emission employed to provide concentrated solar thermal energy at
reduction. different temperatures. In addition, the pyrolysis and gasifi-
Currently, numerous prototype reactors, such as two-zone solar cation of the biomass feedstock are driven by concentrated
reactor, fluidized bed reactor, packed-bed reactor, have been devel- solar thermal energy at appropriate temperature. In this
oped for solid fuel solar gasification and a favorable solar conver- method, exergy destruction in solar collection and thermo-
sion ratio can be achieved through experimental investigations chemical conversion processes can be reduced.
[26–31]. Additionally, solar gasification acts as a promising path- (3) Solar thermal energy can be converted into chemical energy
way for valuable liquid fuels production such as methanol and Fis- stored in syngas through solar-biomass gasification. The
cher–Tropsch diesel, and in some publication, the polygeneration energy level of the introduced solar energy is upgraded. An
concept is employed to enhance system performance [32–35]. In effective integrated utilization of the renewable energies
addition, gasified syngas, as a kind of solar fuel, can be directly uti- can be achieved. In addition, under both design and off-
lized for power generation with a favorable efficiency by incorpo- design working conditions, more favorable thermodynamics
rating with the combined Brayton–Rankine cycle [36]. performances of the proposed system are obtained.
Biomass gasification process is a set of complex reactions, in
which the biomass feedstock is preheated, and then pyrolyzed to The rest of this study is organized as follows. In Section 2, we
yield tar and char, then the tar is cracked and char is gasified with propose a novel solar-biomass power generation system integrates
312 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319

a two-stage solar gasifier, and the system performance evaluation In the power generation subsystem, the Brayton-Rankine com-
criteria are given. In Section 3, the chemical composition of the bio- bined cycle system uses a SGT-800 type gas turbine. The steam
mass sample is experimentally determined, and the pyrolysis cycle block is composed of a dual pressure heat recovery steam
kinetic characteristics for the biomass sample are investigated. generator (HRSG) with a high pressure of 55 bar and a low pressure
The energy level upgrade for the solar-biomass gasification is ana- of 6.9 bar. We do not include an energy storage subsystem for the
lyzed in Section 4. The nominal and off-design performances sake of the system simplification, and thus the power output rate
within the representative days are presented. Finally, we summa- will vary with solar irradiation intensity.
rize the main conclusions in Section 5. The two-stage solar-biomass gasification concept is applied in
the proposed solar hybrid power generation system, and it has
the following appealing advantages:
2. New system and performance analysis
(1) Biomass pyrolysis, comprising the feedstock preheating and
2.1. New system steam generation, is driven by mid-temperature solar ther-
mal energy. Since this mid-temperature of solar energy
Concentrated solar energy as a heat resource is introduced to matches better than single high-temperature with the afore-
drive the biomass gasification process for chemical fuel production. mentioned processes, irreversibility in this process can be
However, more exergy destruction will be generated during a typ- reduced.
ical solar-biomass gasification process which is only driven by (2) The introduced mid-temperature solar thermal energy is
high-temperature solar thermal energy. To overcome this limita- concentrated by the LFC, which can achieve a relative
tion, a two-stage gasification concept is employed to optimize increased collection efficiency than the PFC that operates
the reaction process of solar-biomass gasification. In accordance in a higher temperature range.
with the reaction procedure, biomass gasification process can be (3) Solar energy can be readily stored in chemical form by driv-
divided into two parts, pyrolysis and gasification, at different reac- ing biomass pyrolysis and gasification, which helps over-
tion temperatures. Therefore, a two-stage solar-biomass gasifica- come the limitations of solar energy such as low-energy
tion is employed in this work, and the required heat resource for density and intermittency.
each sub-process is suitably provided. The produced syngas, i.e., (4) The gasified syngas as a kind of solar fuel can be effectively
solar fuel, is directly utilized by an advanced combined cycle for utilized by an advanced gas turbine or used for liquid fuels
power generation. The flow diagram of this two-stage solar- production, e.g., methanol, and diesel.
biomass gasification system is depicted in Fig. 1.
The proposed solar-biomass power generation system consists
of a solar-assisted biomass gasification subsystem and a power 2.2. System designated operation parameters
generation subsystem. During the gasification process, the biomass
pyrolysis initially produces tar and char at temperature lower than The PFC provides high-temperature thermal energy by concen-
673 K. The required solar thermal energy is concentrated by line- trating solar irradiation from the heliostats. Heliostats, with width
focus solar collectors (LFC), such as parabolic trough solar collector, and length of 12 m, revolve on dual axes to track sunrays. Mean-
besides, the steam as the gasification agent is also generated by the while, solar energy used for pyrolysis is concentrated by the LPC,
LFC. Subsequently, a point-focus collector (PFC) with the beam- e.g., parabolic trough collectors. The solar field is connected by
down concept is applied to provide gasification reaction heat for numerous solar loops. In this work, the ET-150 type collector is
the processes of tar cracking and char gasification at temperature employed. The fundamental parameters of the collectors are
above 1000 K, for syngas production. Solid particles of ash and shown in Table 1. The solar field is installed in the south–north
other corrosive components, such as H2S, are removed from the direction and tracks sunrays automatically.
produced syngas via condensation and clean-up. Finally, the qual- Solar energy resource is abundant in China, especially in west-
ified syngas as gas fuel is directly fed into combined cycle to gen- ern China. The hybrid solar-biomass power generation system is
erate power. located in Yanqi (E 86°340 , N 42°050 ), Xinjiang province in western

Hyperboloid
reflector
GT GT
Compressor Combustor Turbine

Heliostats
Air
Biomass

Syngas
H 2O clean-up
Solar gasifier

Steam
Turbine
Cooling
tower

Condenser
HRSG
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the novel solar-biomass power generation system.
 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319 313

Table 1 tions, including power load ratio and ambient temperature. As a

Parameters of ET-150 type solar collector. result, the off-design behavior of the proposed systems should be
Items Unit evaluated. Four representative days (19 March, 21 June, 22
Aperture width m 5.75 September, and 21 December) were selected for analysis. The
Focal length m 1.71 direct nominal irradiation profiles vary during the four selected
Glass envelope outer/inner diameter m 0.115/0.109 days, as depicted in Fig. 2.
Absorber tube outer/inner diameter m 0.07/0.066
Mirror reflectivity % 94
Designate optical efficiency % 85.32 2.3. Performance evaluation method

In this section, system thermodynamic performance and solar

China. The on-design point of the proposed system is the solar time energy conversion efficiency are evaluated [33,41]. A typical bio-
of 12 h on June 21 and the nominal operation parameters for des- mass integrated combined cycle (BIGCC) system is selected and
ignation are listed in Table 2. used as the reference system in this work, so that the electric
The economical collection radius of the biomass resource and power generated from the input biomass energy with typical gasi-
the effect of solar field scale on solar tower collection performances fication routines and the contribution of the introduced solar
should be taken into account. For PFC, the solar field layout is energy for the power generation can be calculated. Biomass is
designed and optimized with the assistance of the System Advisor directly gasified with purified O2, and the gasified syngas is used
Model (SAM) software, which is developed by the National Renew- in a combined cycle for generating power. Both on-design and
able Energy Laboratory in USA [40]. off-design thermodynamic performance evaluations of the pro-
The solar field is chosen based on the required thermal solar posed solar hybrid power system are implemented. The reference
energy, the design point condition, and the power capacity. The system is also simulated under the same operating conditions.
solar multiplier is set to 1.0 since the energy storage subsystem For the proposed hybrid power system with two-stage solar-
is not considered. The aperture of the LFC is 20,772 m2, while the biomass gasification, the net generated electricity Wnet and the
heliostat area of the PFC is about 78,830 m2 and the maximum dis- incremental solar power production Wsol,elec are defined as:
tance of the heliostat from the tower is about 475 m.
W net ¼ W  W CC;aux  W sol;parasitic ð1Þ
Since the solar irradiation and ambient condition are variable,
the operating parameters of the hybrid system should be adjusted
W ref;net ¼ mref;syngas  HHVref;syngas  gCC;net  W ASU ð2Þ
because energy storage systems are not included. The performance
of the gas and steam turbines is influenced by operating condi-
W sol;elec ¼ W net  W ref;net ð3Þ

where W and Wnet represent the total generated power of the pro-
Table 2 posed system and the net output power, respectively; WCC,aux, Wsol,-
Nominal parameters for the proposed solar thermal power system.
parasitic and WASU indicate the power consumption of the combined
Items cycle auxiliary devices, parasitic consumption of solar field opera-
Location Yanqi, Xinjiang tion and the power consumption of air separation unit, respectively;
Altitude 1055 m Wref, net is the net power output of the reference system, and gCC,net
Direct nominal irradiation (DNI) 751 W/m2 is the net efficiency of the combined cycle in the proposed system.
Ambient temperature 298.35 K
The overall energy efficiency gth,sys and the net solar-to-electric
Pyrolysis temperature 643 K
Gasification pressure 18 bar efficiency gsol-elec are used as basic criteria for performance evalu-
Gasification temperature 1150 K ation of the proposed solar-biomass hybrid systems, which are
Solar collection temperature for LFC/PFC 643–1150 K defined as:
Mass ratio of steam to biomass 0.5
Pressure ratio of GT compressor 20 W net
Gas turbine inert temperature 1561.15 K gth; sys ¼ ð4Þ
DNI  Ssolar þ mbio HHVbio
Gas turbine exhaust temperature 819.15 K
Parameters of the high-pressure steam 805.15 K/55 bar
Parameters of the low-pressure steam 533.15 K/6.9 bar W net  W ref;net
gsolelec ¼ ð5Þ
Pinch-point temperature difference of HRSG 20 K DNI  Ssolar

where Ssolar is the area of the solar field; HHV represents the higher
heat value; and m represents the mass rate.
For the off-design performances of the system on representative
days, the accumulated amount of the net generated electricity
Wnet,day is considered, and can be calculated by:
X
W net; day ¼ W net  Dt ð6Þ

If the power load ratio of the gas turbine is lower than 10%, the
power generation system will be shut down, because the system
efficiency declines sharply and the generated electricity cannot
even compensate the basic power consumption of the auxiliary
devices at such low power load.
Meanwhile, the one-stage solar-biomass gasification system
with equivalent biomass gasification feed rate is evaluated, and
used to reveal the potential thermodynamic performance improve-
ment of the two-stage solar-biomass gasification power generation
Fig. 2. DNI profiles of the representative days. system. The only difference between the two systems is that the
314 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319

one-stage solar-biomass gasification system is driven only by high-

temperature solar thermal energy collected by the PFC.

3. Biomass sample determination

3.1. Chemical composition of the biomass sample

Corn straw is the most abundant herbaceous biomass resource

in China, and is thus selected as the gasification feedstock. The bio-
mass sample of corn straw was selected follows.
The pyrolysis experiment of corn straw was first conducted, by
a program-controlled electrical furnace, at temperature below
673 K, the tar yield ratio reached 19.5% as reported in Table 3.
The chemical composition as air-dry basis of the biomass sample
and the char (solid product from pyrolysis) were determined and
summarized in Table 4. Fig. 3. TG and DTG curves for pyrolysis of corn straw.

3.2. Kinetic analysis of biomass pyrolysis

-8.5
To investigate the two-stage solar-biomass gasification concept, 0.15 0.1 0.05
the thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the biomass feedstock
-9.0 0.95
pyrolysis has been applied. The reaction temperature of the start
and end can be measured, and the biomass pyrolysis kinetic charac-
teristics can also be obtained by analyzing the TGA data. The TGA -9.5
measurements were performed using a Mettler Toledo TGA/DSC-1 ln(β/Τ 2)
with a gas flow of 50 mL/min of nitrogen. In the TGA experiments,
the sample was pulverized to a particle size of about 0.2 mm, and -10.0
10K/min
heated from room temperature to 1000 K at a heating rate of 10– 15K/min
50 K/min. The thermogravimetric curve (TG) and differential ther- 20K/min
mogravimetric (DTG) curves of the samples on TGA are shown in -10.5 50K/min
Fig. 3. The main weight loss procedure occurs within the tempera-
ture range of 500–650 K, and the solar collection temperature of the 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80
parabolic trough collector can satisfy such technical requirement. 1000/T K-1
In this study, the reaction conversion rate of the biomass sam-
Fig. 4. Arrhenius plot of b/T2 versus 1/T at selected conversion ratios.
ple denoted by a can be expressed as follows:
mo  mt
a¼ ð7Þ The reaction rate constant k is dependent on the temperature
mo  mf
and can be expressed by:
where mo and mf are the initial and the final masses of the sample,  
respectively; mt stands for the mass of the sample at time (t). E
k ¼ A exp  ð9Þ
It is assumed that in the nonisothermal and heterogeneous RT
reaction of biomass pyrolysis, the general reaction rate (da/dT) is
where A is the pre-exponential factor; E represents the activation
calculated as a function of conversion rate a and rate constant k
energy and R indicates the universal gas constant [8.314 J/(K mol)].
(T), as follows:
In kinetics investigation, the distributed activation energy
da 1 model (DAEM) is widely used because it fits the DTG curve DTG
¼ k  f ðaÞ ð8Þ by a series of parallel, first-order reactions. The DAEM is based
dT b
on the assumption that the system consists of a series of irre-
where b is the heating rate; and f (a) refers to the reasonable model versible parallel first order reactions. The details were elucidated
of the reaction mechanism. by Miura [42–44]. Finally, the reaction conversion rate can be sim-
plified as:
Z 1
Table 3
Product yield of pyrolysis (wt.%). a¼1 UðE; TÞf ðEÞdE ð10Þ
0
Tar Water Char Gas
where f(E) is the distribution function of the activation energy, and
Corn straw 19.50 22.13 38.26 20.11
U(E,T) can be approximated as follows:

Table 4
Chemical composition of the biomass sample.

Sample Proximate analysis (wt.%) Ultimate analysis (wt.%) HHV (MJ kg1)
Mad Aad Vad FCad Cad Had Nad Sad Oad
Corn straw 3.94 7.1 69.56 19.39 41.49 6.05 2.35 0.19 38.88 16.51
Chara 0.36 18.65 22.81 58.18 59.28 3.90 4.60 0.25 12.96 25.67
a
Produced by pyrolysis.
 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319 315

!
ART 2 E=RT m1 e1 þ DE2  DEw
UðE; TÞ ffi exp  e ð11Þ A3 ¼ ð16Þ
bE m1 h1 þ DH2
The reaction heat factor # denotes the ratio of the absorbed
In the TGA experiments, pyrolysis characteristics were mea-
solar thermal energy to the feedstock chemical energy, namely
sured at heating rates of 10, 15, 20 and 50 K/min. The Arrhenius
# = DH2/m1h1, thus Eq. (13) is changed to:
plot of b/T2 versus 1/T was determined through mathematical anal-
ysis as illustrated in Fig. 4. The activation energy E at selected con- m1 e1 DE 2  DE w
version ratio can be determined, and the overall activation energy A3 ¼ þ ¼ A3
m1 h1 þ #m1 h1 DH2 =# þ DH2
E is 223.95 kJ/mol.
A1 #
¼ þ ðA2  DAw Þ ð17Þ
1þ# 1þ#
4. Results and discussion
where DAw = DEw/DH2 is the energy level reduction of the reaction
4.1. Energy level upgrade from solar thermal energy to chemical
heat, and it is caused by the mismatch of energy levels between the
energy
solar thermal energy and biomass gasification.
Through the solar thermochemical process of driving biomass
The energy level A and energy-utilization diagram methodology
gasification, a part of solar thermal energy is converted to chemical
(EUD) proposed by Ishida and Kawamura [45] are applied to ana-
fuel of syngas with an upgraded energy level. The relative upgrade
lyze energy level upgrading. Energy level A is a dimensionless cri-
ratio in the energy level of solar thermal energy may be formulated
terion and defined as the ratio of exergy change DE to energy
as:
change DH, namely A = DE/DH = 1  T0DS/DH. For transferred
heat, the energy level AT can be simplified to AT = 1  T0/T.  
ðA3  A2 Þ A1 #
For an energy-conversion system, energy is released by the ¼ þ ðA2  DAw Þ  A2 A2
A2 1þ# 1þ#
energy donor (Aed) and accepted by the energy acceptor (Aea).
Correspondingly, the EUD can be illustrated and determined by ðA1  A2 Þ # DA w
¼  ð18Þ
the energy level (A) versus the energy-conversion quantity (DH), ð1 þ #ÞA2 1 þ # A2
which graphically shows the variations of energy quality and The energy level difference between biomass feedstock A1 and
energy quantity of the process. With the assistance of the EUD, syngas A3 serves as a ‘‘driving force” to improve the solar thermal
exergy destruction can be obtained easily from the shaded area energy to the higher one in chemical energy. Meanwhile, the energy
between the curves for Aed and Aea. Meanwhile, the energy level level upgrade ratio is dependent on DAw produced by the mismatch
degradation of each process and the driving force as the energy of energy levels between the reaction heat resource and biomass
level difference can be graphically shown. gasification. The reduction of DAw is one way to enhance the perfor-
Concentrated solar energy is used to drive the biomass gasifica- mance of solar-biomass gasification. Consequently, the two-stage
tion, and the solar energy is converted into chemical energy. From solar-biomass gasification concept is proposed in this work, with
the viewpoint of the energy level, the energy level of the solar a main motivation to decrease exergy destruction during the mid-
energy can be upgraded to that of produced solar fuel, which can temperature reaction procedure. The EUD for the solar-biomass
then be used in numerous energy applications with increased gasification process is illustrated in Fig. 6. For the typical solar-
efficiency. biomass gasification process with high-temperature solar energy
For the given solar-biomass gasification process (see Fig. 5), the introduced (1150 K for the case study), the energy level of solar
energy and exergy balances can be expressed as follows: energy can be improved from 0.74 to 0.9 by conversion into the pro-
m3 h3 ¼ m1 h1 þ DH2 ð12Þ duced syngas. While, if the gasification process employs the pro-
posed two-stage solar-biomass gasification technical mode, the
m3 e3 ¼ m1 e1 þ DE2  DEw ð13Þ energy level of the required solar energy is reduced to 0.68, and
the increased energy level upgrade ratio of 32.35% for the solar
where m, h and e represent the mass, specific enthalpy and specific energy conversion can be achieved. In addition, compared to the
exergy, respectively; DEw is the reaction exergy destruction during one-stage gasification mode, the proposed system can convert more
the gasification process. heat resource of solar energy into the chemical form, accounting for
In accordance with the definition of the energy level, we obtain 9.25% of the required net exergy of the solar thermal energy.
the following:
A1 ¼ m1 e1 =m1 h1 ¼ e1 =h1 ð14Þ
1.25
Abiomass
A2 ¼ DE2 =DH2 ¼ 1  T 0 =T 2 ð15Þ
1.0
Substituting Eqs. (14) and (15) into Eq. (13), the energy level of Asyngas
the syngas as produced solar fuel can be expressed as:
ATIT
A'solar
A

Asolar
0.5 ΔEextra
biomass
syngas
steam Gasification
H3, E3, A3
H1, E1, A1
H2, E2, A2 0.0
Solar energy 0 50 100 200
(thermal resource) ΔH / MW

Fig. 5. The process of solar assistant biomass-steam gasification. Fig. 6. EUD of solar-biomass gasification process.
316 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319

4.2. System evaluation under the on-design condition

System performance evaluation on two-stage solar-biomass

gasification concept under the nominal condition was first con-
ducted using the aforementioned evaluation criteria, the net gener-
ated power is 42.11 MW, with a the biomass feed rate of 4.6 kg/s
and introduced solar energy of 74.8 MW. In the solar-biomass gasi-
fication process, the net solar share is about 49.61%, whereas the
overall system energy efficiency and exergy efficiency reach
27.93% and 31.62%, respectively. By comparison with the reference
system, gsol-elec can be calculated and is about 19.89%. In the sys-
tem with one-stage biomass gasification, if the biomass processing
rate is equal to the proposed system, then the solar energy require-
ment is increased to 85.39 MW, resulting in gth,sys and gsol-elec
reduction by 6.56% and 12.4%, respectively.
Furthermore, detailed investigations, including energy and Fig. 7. EUD of the power generation subsystem.
exergy balance analysis, were implemented, and the results are
summarized in Table 5. Under the given on-design operation con-
ditions, the largest energy and exergy loss in the proposed system with a total exergy destruction of 7.08 MW. While, the width of
are produced in the solar collection processes, which accounts for Aed,GT and Aea,comp indicates the gas turbine’s work output and
the total energy input of 27.36% and total exergy input of 22.13%, the compressor’s power consumption, the GT net power output
respectively. compared to the one-stage gasification mode, the reaches 32.27 MW. During the heat recovery sub-process within
exergy loss in solar collection for the proposed system and solar the HRSG, the energy level of flue gas exiting the gas turbine
thermochemical process are reduced by 23.25% and 20.22%, (Aed2) acts as the energy donor, and its energy level decreased from
respectively. Additionally, the heat loss of the stack gas and the 0.64 to 0.19, while the feed water of the steam Rankine cycle rep-
steam condensation contributes to the second largest energy loss resents an energy acceptor with energy level improved from 0.06
of 29.83%. While, for the exergy analysis, the second largest energy to 0.63. The area between the curves Aed2 and Aea2 indicates the
loss item is generated in the syngas combustion processes and exergy destruction in the HRSG, which is 4.04 MW or 3.03% of
accounts for 16.37% of the total input. the total exergy input.
In particular, for the power generation subsystem in the com-
bined cycle, the illustrated EUD is shown in Fig. 7, five energy con- 4.3. Off-design evaluation in representative days
version sub-processes, namely gas combustion, air compression,
gas expansion, heat exchange in HRSG and steam expansion, are Owing to the fact that the performance of the solar collection
included. For the gas combustion process in the GT gas combustor, and combined cycle are affected by operation conditions, we eval-
the combustion of fuel plays the role of energy donor in heating uated the off-design behavior in four representative days. Solar col-
fuel and air which are energy acceptors, and Aea1 denotes the heat- lection efficiency, including heliostat optical efficiency and receiver
ing of the fuel gas and air, and the exergy destruction in the com- thermal efficiency, is computed based on the optimized solar field
bustor reaches 21.8 MW. The gas turbine (Aed,GT) and compressor layout and the local meteorological data. In addition, the inte-
(Aea,comp) serve as the energy donors and acceptor, respectively, grated Brayton-Rankine cycle is referred to SGT-800 type gas tur-

Table 5
Energy and exergy balances in the proposed systems.

Two-stage solar-biomass gasification One-stage solar-biomass gasification

Energy balance Exergy balance Energy balance Exergy balance
Input Value (kW) Ratio (%) Value (kW) Ratio (%) Value (kW) Ratio (%) Value (kW) Ratio (%)
Biomass 75973.00 50.39 80948.82 60.79 75973.00 47.08 80948.82 56.14
Solar energy 643 K 15599.77 10.35 8366.38 6.28 – – – –
Solar energy 1150 K 59200.28 39.26 43851.96 32.93 85389.33 52.92 63251.22 43.86
Total 150773.05 100.00 133167.16 100.00 161362.33 100.00 144200.03 100.00
Output
Generated power 42107.84 27.93 42107.84 31.62 42107.84 26.10 42107.84 29.20
Energy loss/exergy loss Energy loss/exergy loss
Solar collection-643 K 5311.91 3.52 2848.85 2.14 – – – –
Solar collection-1150 K 35944.60 23.84 26625.57 19.99 51845.79 32.13 38404.20 26.63
Solar-steam generation – – 1435.40 1.08 – – 1435.40 1.00
Gasification unit – – 8299.88 6.23 – – 10402.97 7.21
Syngas condensation 14292.45 9.48 7507.91 5.64 14292.45 8.86 7507.91 5.21
Gas combustor – – 21801.00 16.37 – – 21801.00 15.12
Gas turbine 2155.40 1.43 7083.70 5.32 2155.40 1.34 7083.70 4.91
Steam turbine 1123.86 0.75 2444.60 1.84 1123.86 0.70 2444.60 1.70
HRSG – – 4041.00 3.03 – – 4041.00 2.80
Stack loss 14131.72 9.37 90.48 0.07 14131.72 8.76 90.48 0.06
Condenser 30851.00 20.46 1941.50 1.46 30851.00 19.12 1941.50 1.35
Aux power 2632.50 1.75 2632.50 1.98 2632.50 1.63 2632.50 1.83
Others 2221.78 1.47 4306.92 3.23 2221.78 1.38 4306.92 2.99
Total 150773.05 100.00 133167.16 100.00 161362.33 100.00 144200.03 100.00
 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319 317

bine, the power cycle off-design performance is simulated consid- efficiencies of gth,sys and the net power output of Wnet. Electricity
ering the influences of the ambient temperature, power load, gas generated by the combined cycle varies instantaneously with solar
fuel composition. irradiation because neither thermal energy storage system nor
The results are calculated based on a one-hour basis, and Fig. 8 chemical energy storage system is adopted in the proposed solar
presents the system performance represented by system energy hybrid power system. On June 21st, the daily maximum power of

Fig. 8. Hourly net generated electricity and the system energy efficiency in the representative days.

Fig. 9. Hourly solar-to-electric efficiency of the systems in the representative days.

318 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319

(a) two-stage solar-biomass gasification (b) one-stage solar-biomass gasification

600 40 600 40
3.19 3.19
6.21 6.21
450 9.22 30 450 9.22 30

ηsys,th /ηsol-elec / %
ηsys,th /ηsol-elec / %
12.21 12.21

Wnet / MW⋅h
Wnet / MW⋅h

300 20 300 20

150 10 150 10

0 0 0 0
Wnet ηsys,th ηsol-elec Wnet ηsys,th ηsol-elec

Fig. 10. Daily average system performances in the representative days.

44.31 MW h with the highest gth,sys of 28.47% is achieved at 12 h, accelerate the commercial operation in the near future, which will
and the operational time last for 10 h. For the typical days in March bridge current fossil-fuel-based technologies and future solar ther-
and September, the maximum power is 26.63% and 26.89%, respec- mochemical technologies. Thus, the proposed system provides a
tively, and gth,sys for both days is above 25%. promising approach for efficient utilization of the abundant solar
Furthermore, in the sunny hours of the December day, com- and biomass resources in the western China.
pared to other days, the system performances experience a sharp
performance reduction, with the highest hourly net power of only
5. Conclusions
19.01 MW h and the gth,sys of 16.29%. The main reasons are that the
operation time is significantly reduced to 5 h, and the solar collec-
In this work, we propose a new solar hybrid power generation
tion efficiencies are weakened, which resulting in a lower effi-
system that integrated with a two-stage gasifier. The on-design
ciency for power cycle and decreased power ratio.
and off-design thermodynamic performances are simulated and
The comparison on performance represented by gsol-elec
analyzed, and the main research findings can be outlined as follows:
between the proposed system with two-stage and one-stage
solar-biomass gasification mode is conducted, and daily results
(1) A new system with two-stage solar-biomass gasification
are summarized in Fig. 9. Generally, gsol-elec for the two-stage gasi-
route is proposed for efficient utilization of the solar energy.
fication mode is higher than that for the one-stage gasification
The proposed system applies mid-temperature solar energy
mode, although the overall variation trends are similar. In summer
collected by the LPC for the biomass pyrolysis, which
time such as in June day, the gsol-elec for the novel two-stage system
matches well with the reaction temperature, and the exergy
is higher than the three other selected days with a peak value of
destruction during the gasification process and the solar
20.7%. The daily efficiency is also higher than the one-stage gasifi-
energy collection process can be reduced by 23.25% and
cation mode which in the range of 12.28–30.61%. However, in the
20.22% compared to the one-stage solar-biomass gasifica-
winter time such as in December, the performance of novel two-
tion mode, respectively.
stage solar-biomass gasification mode is worse than the one-
(2) By using concentrated solar energy to drive the biomass
stage solar-biomass gasification mode since the reduction ratio of
gasification, solar energy is converted into the chemical fuel
gsol-elec reaches from 0.64% to 16.11%. The reasons are that the solar
in the form of gasified syngas. The energy level of the intro-
collection efficiency of the LFC deteriorates substantially in winter
duced solar thermal energy in the proposed two-stage solar-
as the cosine effect is increased, while the performances of the PFC
biomass gasification system was improved from 0.68 to 0.9,
still remains at a reasonably high level, especially when dual-axis
which results in an energy level upgrading ratio of 32.35%
tracked heliostats are applied.
compared to 21.62% in one-stage gasification mode.
The daily average performances of the developed system in the
(3) Under the nominal condition, the overall energy efficiency
representative days are summarized in Fig. 10. The daily maximum
and the net solar-to-electric efficiency for the proposed
net generated electricity output produced in June day is
novel system reached 27.93% and 19.89%, respectively. Addi-
409.65 MW h with the highest averaged gth,sys of 29.14% and gsol-
tionally, the proposed system exhibits satisfactory thermo-
elec of 19.04%. Although the daily operation times in March and
dynamics performances except in December days during
September days are relatively shorter than that in June day, gas
system off-design evaluation. In addition, and the daily aver-
turbines can operate with a favorable performance, with an aver-
age net solar-to-electric efficiency achieved the improve-
age gsol-elec up to 17.15% and 16.07%, respectively. This is mainly
ment in the range of 8.6–21.33% compared to the one-
because the contributions of higher intercepted solar heat and
stage gasification thermochemical system.
the lower ambient temperature, while the system with one-stage
gasification technical mode can only achieve 15.71% and 14.81%.
The proposed hybrid solar power generation integrating two-
The above studies indicate the proposed novel solar-biomass
stage gasification routine provides a promising approach for the
power generation system integrated with a two-stage gasifier
efficient utilization of the abundant renewable solar and biomass
exhibits remarkable performance, which achieves the daily aver-
energy resources in western China.
age efficiency of the gsol-elec above 15% except in December day.
Although the solar-biomass gasification can only be realized at
the laboratory scale currently, the conventional biomass gasifica- Acknowledgements
tion and the concentrated solar power technologies have become
mature, they will contribute to make a breakthrough and facilitate The authors appreciate financial support provided by the
the real applications of solar-biomass gasification technology. National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51276214, No.
Therefore, the solar-biomass thermal gasification technology will 51236008).
 Z. Bai et al. / Applied Energy 194 (2017) 310–319 319

References [25] Chau J, Sowlati T, Sokhansanj S, Preto F, Melin S, Bi X. Techno-economic

analysis of wood biomass boilers for the greenhouse industry. Appl Energy
2009;86:364–71.
[1] Moriarty P, Honnery D. What is the global potential for renewable energy?
[26] Kruesi M, Jovanovic ZR, Steinfeld A. A two-zone solar-driven gasifier concept:
Renew Sust Energy Rev 2012;16:244–52.
reactor design and experimental evaluation with bagasse particles. Fuel
[2] Pérez-Navarro A, Alfonso D, Ariza HE, Cárcel J, Correcher A, Escrivá-Escrivá G,
2014;117:680–7.
et al. Experimental verification of hybrid renewable systems as feasible energy
[27] Gokon N, Izawa T, Kodama T. Steam gasification of coal cokes by internally
sources. Renew Energy 2016;86:384–91.
circulating fluidized-bed reactor by concentrated Xe-light radiation for solar
[3] Jacobson MZ. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy
syngas production. Energy 2015;79:264–72.
security. Energy Environ Sci 2009;2:148–73.
[28] Z’Graggen A, Haueter P, Maag G, Romero M, Steinfeld A. Hydrogen production
[4] Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V. Environmental impacts from the solar
by steam-gasification of carbonaceous materials using concentrated solar
energy technologies. Energy Policy 2005;33:289–96.
energy – IV. Reactor experimentation with vacuum residue. Int J Hydrogen
[5] Liang H, You S, Zhang H. Comparison of different heat transfer models for
Energy 2008;33:679–84.
parabolic trough solar collectors. Appl Energy 2015;148:105–14.
[29] Piatkowski N, Steinfeld A. Solar-driven coal gasification in a thermally
[6] Luo Y, Du X, Wen D. Novel design of central dual-receiver for solar power
irradiated packed-bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2008;22:2043–52.
tower. Appl Therm Eng 2015;91:1071–81.
[30] Puig-Arnavat M, Tora EA, Bruno JC, Coronas A. State of the art on reactor
[7] Montes MJ, Rubbia C, Abbas R, Martinez-Val JM. A comparative analysis of
designs for solar gasification of carbonaceous feedstock. Sol Energy
configurations of linear Fresnel collectors for concentrating solar power.
2013;97:67–84.
Energy 2014;73:192–203.
[31] Lichty P, Perkins C, Woodruff B, Bingham C, Weimer A. Rapid high temperature
[8] Esen M, Yuksel T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy
solar thermal biomass gasification in a prototype cavity reactor. J Sol Energy-T
sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build 2013;65:340–51.
ASME 2010;132. 011012-1-7.
[9] Khan J, Arsalan MH. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity
[32] Guo P, van Eyk PJ, Saw WL, Ashman PJ, Nathan GJ, Stechel EB. Performance
generation – a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2016;55:414–25.
assessment of Fischer–Tropsch liquid fuels production by solar hybridized
[10] Razykov TM, Ferekides CS, Morel D, Stefanakos E, Ullal HS, Upadhyaya HM.
dual fluidized bed gasification of lignite. Energy Fuels 2015;29:2738–51.
Solar photovoltaic electricity: current status and future prospects. Sol Energy
[33] Bai Z, Liu Q, Lei J, Li H, Jin H. A polygeneration system for the methanol
2011;85:1580–608.
production and the power generation with the solar–biomass thermal
[11] Desideri U, Zepparelli F, Morettini V, Garroni E. Comparative analysis of
gasification. Energy Convers Manage 2015;102:190–201.
concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies: technical and
[34] Nzihou A, Flamant G, Stanmore B. Synthetic fuels from biomass using
environmental evaluations. Appl Energy 2013;102:765–84.
concentrated solar energy – a review. Energy 2012;42:121–31.
[12] Elsafi AM. Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of sustainable direct steam
[35] Hathaway BJ, Kittelson DB, Davidson JH. Integration of solar gasification with
generation solar power plants. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:338–47.
conventional fuel production: the roles of storage and hybridization. J Sol
[13] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J, Jin H. A three-dimensional simulation of a parabolic
Energy-T ASME 2014;136. 010906-1-10.
trough solar collector system using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. Appl
[36] Campo P, Benitez T, Lee U, Chung JN. Modeling of a biomass high temperature
Therm Eng 2014;70:462–76.
steam gasifier integrated with assisted solar energy and a micro gas turbine.
[14] Zarza E, Rojas ME, González L, Caballero JM, Rueda F. INDITEP: the first pre-
Energy Convers Manage 2015;93:72–83.
commercial DSG solar power plant. Sol Energy 2006;80:1270–6.
[37] Balu E, Lee U, Chung JN. High temperature steam gasification of woody
[15] Zhu G, Wendelin T, Wagner MJ, Kutscher C. History, current state, and future of
biomass – a combined experimental and mathematical modeling approach. Int
linear Fresnel concentrating solar collectors. Sol Energy 2014;103:639–52.
J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:14104–15.
[16] Vignarooban K, Xu X, Arvay A, Hsu K, Kannan AM. Heat transfer fluids for
[38] Sharma A, Pareek V, Zhang D. Biomass pyrolysis – a review of modelling,
concentrating solar power systems – a review. Appl Energy 2015;146:383–96.
process parameters and catalytic studies. Renew Sust Energy Rev
[17] Peng S, Wang Z, Hong H, Xu D, Jin H. Exergy evaluation of a typical 330 MW
2015;50:1081–96.
solar-hybrid coal-fired power plant in China. Energy Convers Manage
[39] Wang S, Bi X, Wang S. Thermodynamic analysis of biomass gasification for
2014;85:848–55.
biomethane production. Energy 2015;90:1207–18.
[18] Heller P, Pfander M, Denk T, Tellez F, Valverde A, Fernandez J, et al. Test and
[40] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. System Advisor Model (SAM).
evaluation of a solar powered gas turbine system. Sol Energy 2006;80:1225–30.
<https://sam.nrel.gov>.
[19] Barigozzi G, Franchini G, Perdichizzi A, Ravelli S. Simulation of solarized
[41] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-
combined cycles: comparison between hybrid gas turbine and ISCC plants. J
coupled heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Build
Eng Gas Turb Power-T ASME 2014;136. 0317011-10.
Environ 2007;42:3606–15.
[20] Sandoz R, Spelling J, Laumert B, Fransson T. Air-based bottoming-cycles for
[42] Miura K. A new and simple method to estimate f(E) and k0(E) in the
water-free hybrid solar gas-turbine power plants. J Eng Gas Turb Power-T
distributed activation energy model from three sets of experimental data.
ASME 2013;135:101701–10.
Energy Fuels 1995;9:302–7.
[21] Yadav D, Banerjee R. A review of solar thermochemical processes. Renew Sust
[43] Miura K, Maki T. A simple method for estimating f(E) and k0(E) in the
Energy Rev 2016;54:497–532.
distributed activation energy model. Energy Fuels 1998;12:864–9.
[22] Piatkowski N, Wieckert C, Weimer AW, Steinfeld A. Solar-driven gasification of
[44] Meng A, Zhou H, Qin L, Zhang Y, Li Q. Quantitative and kinetic TG-FTIR
carbonaceous feedstock – a review. Energy Environ Sci 2011;4:73–82.
investigation on three kinds of biomass pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol
[23] Ahrenfeldt J, Thomsen TP, Henriksen U, Clausen LR. Biomass gasification
2013;104:28–37.
cogeneration – a review of state of the art technology and near future
[45] Ishida M, Kawamura K. Energy and exergy analysis of a chemical process
perspectives. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:1407–17.
system with distributed parameters based on the enthalpy-direction factor
[24] Bridgwater AV. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading.
diagram. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1982;21:690–5.
Biomass Bioenergy 2012;38:68–94.