Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Techno-economic assessment of turning gasification-based waste char

into energy: A case study in South-Tyrol
Stefano Piazzi a,⇑, Xiaolei Zhang b, Francesco Patuzzi a, Marco Baratieri a
a
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bolzano, piazza Università 5, Bolzano 39100, Italy
b
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Strathclyde, James Weir Building JW405g, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK

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

Article history: In the South-Tyrol region (Italy), 46 gasifiers are currently operating and €200,000 are annually paid to
Received 16 September 2019 dispose of as a waste 1300 tons of char. Therefore, there is a considerable interest in finding alternatives
Revised 27 January 2020 for the valorization of this solid by-product. The aim of this work is to assess the potential of char as
Accepted 25 February 2020
energy source and to compare two scenarios. The first scenario considers the possibility of exploiting char
Available online 6 March 2020
in a dedicated burner integrated in the gasification plant. The second scenario assumes that all the char is
collected from South-Tyrol and co-fired with biomass in an existing combustion-ORC plant. An economic
Keywords:
analysis was performed evaluating the discounted payback time and both scenarios were modeled using
Char
Waste
Aspen PlusÒ. The results reveal that substantial savings in the operating costs of the plants can be
Gasification achieved. In the first scenario the owners of the gasification plants could save from 50% to 94% of the char
Combustion disposal costs with a payback time ranging between 3 and 7 years. In the second scenario, the owner of
Economic analysis the plant could save approximately €235 k per year with a payback time of approximately 7 years. The
System model present study provides a basis for further techno-economic studies on char combustion. The results can
be helpful for the owners of the gasification plants in determining the most cost-effective way to dispose
char and to avoid disposing it of as a waste. Furthermore, it is demonstrated how char could be used as a
renewable fuel, with better performance than raw biomass.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction fuel, mainly composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon

dioxide and nitrogen. One of the problems related to this technol-
World energy consumption has increased significantly during ogy is the management of the byproducts (i.e. char), which repre-
the past decades and it is projected to continuously grow by 28% sent both economic and energy loss (Marchelli et al., 2019). Char is
between 2015 and 2040 (EIA, 2017). This will lead to an increase a carbon-based material and its production usually ranges between
in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (British Petroleum, 2% and 5% of the input feedstock (Vakalis et al., 2016). In the alpine
2016). The European Council in 2007 adopted ambitious energy region of South Tyrol, 46 gasification plants are currently operat-
and climate change objectives for 2020 (Directorate-General for ing, producing approximately 1300 tons of char every year (Basso
Energy, 2011) and the same has been done in 2016 by the UNFCCC et al., 2017), with an associated cost for the disposal of about
(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 150 €/ton (Patuzzi et al., 2016). Nowadays char is not used in
(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, any applications and it is disposed of as a waste. However, in liter-
2016) at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties ature there are several studies which investigate its possible uses.
(COP 21). One of the available options to accomplish these goals The methods of valorizing this solid carbon residue are: fuel in
and to move towards a sustainable energy future is to maximize gasifiers or combustors (Vakalis et al., 2016), domestic charcoal,
the use of biomass. It has the potential to partially or completely activated carbon (Benedetti et al., 2018, 2016), fertilizer or soil con-
substitute fossil fuels, such as coal, and simultaneously decrease ditioner, manure treatment, feed-additives (Alburquerque et al.,
GHG emission because of its carbon neutrality. Among the avail- 2016), tar reforming catalyst (Abu El-Rub et al., 2008; Cordioli
able technologies to utilize biomass, one of the most interesting et al., 2018) or adsorbent for hydrogen sulphide (H2S) (Marchelli
is gasification, which transforms the input solid fuel into a gaseous et al., 2019). Char applicability in these possible uses is dependent
on its characteristics and composition (Hernandez et al., 2016);
⇑ Corresponding author. nevertheless, a common factor among different chars is the high
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Piazzi). carbon content and heating value, which makes char a suitable fuel

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.038
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559 551

Nomenclature

Abbreviations X vapor title

CHP Combined Heat and Power g efficiency
DH District Heating q density
ER Equivalence Ratio e effectiveness
GHG Greenhouse gases
GS Gasification savings Subscripts
HE Heat Exchanger bio biomass
HRVG Heat Recovery Vapor Generator cond condensation
ICE Internal Combustion Engine d design
IR Interest rate el electric
MDM Octamethyltrisiloxane evap evaporation
ORC Organic Rankine cycle g generator/motor
TG Thermogravimetric gas gasification
H2O-IN return water temp.
Symbols iso isentropic
E power m mechanical
FC Fixed Carbon off off design
LHV Lower Heating Value oil thermal oil
ṁ mass flow rate rec recirculated
P pressure SH super heating
T temperature syn producer gas
V volume th thermal
VM volatile matter

in combustion or co-combustion scenarios (Barbanera et al., 2018; biomass with an addition of char can increase the heating value
Khiari et al., 2019). of the mixture; this is a straightforward consequence of the lower
Galhetas et al. (2012) investigated gasification char residues for moisture content, higher fixed carbon and higher LHV of char than
their potential use for energy production and the studies revealed a that of raw biomass. These factors also show how char is a more
good thermochemical behavior, without presenting any major suitable fuel for combustion than raw biomass (Yi et al., 2013).
operational risks. Compared to raw or torrefied biomass, char is the preferred option
Combustion of gasification char has similar advantages to bio- when co-fired with pulverized coal (Kastanaki and Vamvuka,
mass combustion, because of the low costs, negligible nitrogen 2006). This is due to the fact that char is one of the most reactive
and sulfur content and renewable nature. Besides, it has the poten- carbon materials (Backreedy et al., 2003), due to its porous and
tialities of contributing to the solution of solid waste elimination highly disordered carbon structure, it gives lower operational
problems, as well as reducing greenhouse gas components (Yilgin problems while increasing the mass percentage of char (Eddings
and Pehlivan, 2009). et al., 2015), it gives more heat input (heat energy per unit mass)
Very few studies on char combustion are reported in literature, and exhibits more synergistic features (Sarkar et al., 2014). Yi
and most of them include investigations using thermogravimetric et al. (2013), which compared the combustion characteristics of
analyzer (TGA). These works highlight the high combustion reac- char with respect to biomass and char blends by TG analysis, dis-
tivity of gasification char, compared to coal (Wornat et al., 1995) covered that blends with 10–30% by mass of char behave better
or char obtained from torrefied biomass (Fisher et al., 2012; than those with higher char ratio. Instead when co-firing it with
McNamee et al., 2015). Instead, the majority of the studies focus coal, char-proportion in the blends may be safely raised to 50% in
on the evaluation of kinetic parameters, i.e. char reactivity and dif- mass (Sahu et al., 2010; Sarkar et al., 2014). These studies indicate
fusion rate, by varying the combustion conditions, such as temper- that there is not a linear correlation between the combustion per-
ature (Pereira and Pinho, 2013), oxidizing agents (Molintas and formances and the char mass percentage increase. The thermal
Gupta, 2016; Ramos et al., 2012) or both of them but using temper- behavior of the blends shows some deviations from the expected
ature pertinent to commercial scale plants (Wornat et al., 1996). weighted average of the properties of the constituent fuels. Thus,
While a number of studies concerning co-firing of biomass with to meet the desired combustion performance and to promote the
coal are available in literature, very few studies on biomass (or use of char as a co-fuel for power generation, a judicious selection
coal) and char blends are reported. In regards with coal and bio- of effective blend combination and blend proportion should be
mass co-combustion, Spliethoff (Spliethoff, 2010) highlighted that made.
this approach has a number of advantages even if compared with Nowadays, it is a consolidated practice to combine experimen-
small plants fired with biomass only. Some of these advantages tal activities with process modeling. There are two main
can also apply to char and biomass co-combustion. Firstly, the approaches for modeling gasification, based on thermodynamic
co-combustion (for low co-firing level) could be implemented in (equilibrium) and kinetic (rate) models. According to Safarian
the existing plants; this means that no capital costs are needed. et al. (2019) more than 60% of the gasification models available
Secondly, the efficiency of a large co-combustion plant is always in literature adopts a thermodynamic equilibrium approach.
higher than a small dedicated plant. Lastly, in case of low availabil- Equilibrium modeling is indeed a convenient method to study
ity of secondary fuel, there would not be any energy production the behavior of a fuel given some process parameters. However,
problem because the plant can run with the primary fuel only. some main simplifications are introduced, i.e. the method is inde-
Besides, the few studies on biomass and char blends that can be pendent of the gasifier design and it assumes that the process is
found in literature, unearth interesting conclusions. Co-firing raw carried out in fully mixed condition for an infinite period of time
552 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559

(Tiwary et al., 2018). Among the available options to develop this 2.2. Model for scenario 1
type of model, Aspen PlusÒ (‘‘Aspen Plus - Webpage,” n.d.) is one
of the most widely used software for simulating many thermo- Fig. 1a describes the scheme used for analyzing Scenario 1. Bio-
chemical and thermodynamics processes (Cruz et al., 2017; Fan mass is fed into the gasifier, which converts it into producer gas
et al., 2017; Zang et al., 2019). and char. The input streams to the gasifier are the inlet biomass
A similar approach has been used in this work, which explores and the gasification agent, i.e. air. Both are characterized by their
the potential of char as an energy source in the South Tyrol region thermodynamic conditions and their composition (ref. to Table 2
in Italy and suggests propitious solutions for char valorization. Two for biomass). The producer gas is then cleaned and cooled before
thermodynamic models have been developed using the software being fed in an internal combustion engine (ICE). The model con-
Aspen PlusÒ and validated with experimental data. In particular, siders also the utilization of the char, which is not currently imple-
the developed models have been used to conduct techno- mented in the real plants. It is possible to identify three thermal
economic studies to determine an economic way of disposing char. energy outputs (producer gas cooling, heat recovery from the
An economic analysis was performed for two scenarios, to deter- engine and char combustion) and one electrical energy output
mine the savings in the operating costs and the discounted pay- (from ICE).
back time. The model is based on some main assumptions. The process is
The basis of this work has been laid out in our earlier works assumed to be isothermal, steady state and isobaric (atmospheric),
(Basso et al., 2017; Patuzzi et al., 2016) related to the compre- assuming the ideal gas behavior for both reactants and products.
hensive analysis of the gasification technologies operational in The reactor is considered as zero-dimensional and perfectly mixed
South Tyrol region of Italy. The analysis here presented provides with no consideration of spatial parameters or time. Char is consid-
the basis for developing a possible mechanism for char valoriza- ered to be composed of ashes and carbon (as graphite), instead tar
tion, useful for enhancing the profitability of the biomass gasifi- formation is neglected.
cation sector in South Tyrol and, more generally, for the The gasification reaction mechanism involves several complex
decentralized CHP production from small-scale biomass gasifica- reactions and it generally depends on the fuel type, the gasification
tion systems. agent and the reactor design. Thus, in the proposed simplified
model, the reaction products are evaluated considering chemical
2. Model development and assessment methodology and thermodynamic equilibrium conditions. The composition of a
mixture in these conditions represents the most stable composi-
2.1. Implemented scenarios tion for a reacting system. This operation can be achieved minimiz-
ing the Gibbs free energy of the products using the RGibbs reactor
Two scenarios have been implemented and analyzed. The first (labeled GASIFIER) and by setting the gasification temperature,
scenario, dedicated char burner, considers the design of a dedi- pressure and the possible array of products, i.e. H2, O2, N2, H2O,
cated on-site combustor, directly connected with the cyclone of C, CO, CO2, CH4 and ash (Formica et al., 2016). This kind of reactor
an existing gasification plant. The second scenario, centralized char does not accept non-conventional components, thus the RYield
combustion, considers a centralized collection of char from all the reactor (labeled DECOMP) has to be used to convert biomass into
gasification plants in the South Tyrol region, where a production of its elemental components. Table 2 reports the elemental composi-
about 1300 ton/year has been estimated (Basso et al., 2017), and its tion and the heating value of the feedstock considered in the
co-firing with biomass in a combustion plant connected to an simulations.
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC). A cyclone (SSplit, labeled FILTER1) is used to remove char parti-
The input data and the data used to validate the model are cles. The output gas is then cooled to 110 °C using a Heater block
taken from our earlier works (Basso et al., 2017; Patuzzi et al., (labeled HE1). The cold producer gas is finally fed into a separator
2016), which provide in-depth analysis of eight gasification tech- to remove the water and thus increase the heating value of
nologies operational in the region and are listed in Table 1. the gas.
For the Aspen PlusÒ model developed in this work the MIXCINC The gas produced in the gasification plant is combusted in an
stream class was chosen, to include conventional and non- internal combustion engine. The operating data have been selected
conventional elements. The Peng-Robinson equation of state with in order to represent the values of a real engine and to obtain a
Boston-Mathias modifications (PR-BM) was selected as the prop- similar energy (electrical and thermal) output as the one measured
erty method (‘‘Aspen Plus User Guide 10.2,” 2000). by Patuzzi et al. (Patuzzi et al., 2016). The Otto cycle is modeled in
The property methods HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT were respec- Aspen PlusÒ as a gas turbine with the main difference that fuel and
tively chosen to calculate the enthalpy and density of non- combustion air are mixed before the compression stage and not in
conventional components. In this work, the heat of combustion the combustion chamber (Megwai and Richards, 2016).
was calculated based on the LHV of the biomass. The Aspen flow- As shown in Fig. 1a, the internal combustion engine is subdi-
sheets of the two investigated scenarios are shown in Fig. 1 and vided in three blocks: 1. Compression block (labeled COMPR),
further discussed in the related sections in the following. where the working fluid (producer gas and air) is compressed.

Table 1
Main characteristics of the gasification technologies (Basso et al., 2017).

Technology Feedstock Reactor Agent kWel kWth Biomass [ton/y] Char [ton/y]
A Wood chips Downdraft Air 35–45 79–105 10,036 158
B Pellets Rising co-current Air 180 270 9778 277
C Wood chips Downdraft Air 150 280 2094 44
D Wood chips Downdraft Air 199–296 320–550 10,306 445
E Wood chips BFB, Multistage Air 50 110 222 8
F Wood chips BFB, Multistage Air 250 990 1721 137
G Wood chips Downdraft Air 440 880 3300 70
H Wood chips Downdraft Air 140 270 1165 2
 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559 553

Fig. 1. Aspen PlusÒ flowsheet (a) Scenario 1, (b) Scenario 2.

Table 2
Elemental analysis and heating value of the initial biomass (Basso et al., 2017), the biomass used in the ORC and the South-Tyrolean char mix.

Technology A B C D E F G H ORC Char Mix

Moisture %wtar 6.60 6.32 2.90 3.39 10.30 7.65 11.69 8.24 8.80 –
Ash %wtdry 0.50 0.92 0.40 0.06 0.97 0.44 0.08 0.05 1.10 24.66
C %wtdry 51.17 50.01 51.20 51.02 52.24 49.92 51.70 52.30 50.54 72.88
H %wtdry 5.97 6.20 5.95 5.35 5.94 6.31 5.10 6.46 5.97 0.34
N %wtdry 0.37 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.28
S %wtdry 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.68 0.47 0.36 0.31 0.20 0.00 0.40
O %wtdry 41.99 42.49 42.35 42.72 40.28 42.91 42.76 40.89 42.26 1.43
LHV MJ/kgdry 19.26 18.35 18.68 17.49 17.33 17.81 18.76 18.09 19.66 23.20

The final pressure is set at 20 bar, the isentropic efficiency is set at pressed fluid is burnt at constant volume. Within this block, the
0.8 and the mechanical efficiency is set at 0.98 (Monteiro et al., combustion temperature and pressure are set at 1600 °C and
2012). The compressor works with the work supplied by the tur- 70 bar respectively (Gamiño and Aguillón, 2010; Monteiro et al.,
bine; 2. Combustion block (labeled COMBUST1), where the com- 2012). The oil and the water of the engine are cooled, and the heat
554 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559

is channeled into a heat stream; 3. Expansion block (labeled TUR- in which the thermal energy is released to the water flow of the
BINE), where the exhaust gases are expanded to obtain work. The district heating network; here the vapor is transformed into a sat-
final pressure is set at 2 bar, the isentropic efficiency at 0.8 and urated liquid through a constant pressure process. On the other
the mechanical efficiency at 0.98 (as the compressor) (Monteiro side of the condenser a water stream is used as cooling fluid. The
et al., 2012). input conditions of the water depend on the user and in partial
The integrated char burner is fed by the stream of char that dis- load conditions this is the input that regulates the entire plant.
charges from the cyclone of the gasification plant. The mass frac- A weighted average char composition has been evaluated,
tions of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the char are negligible according to the actual number of modules installed in South-
(<3 %). Thus, char has been considered as a mix of just ash and car- Tyrol for each considered technology and the corresponding char
bon. The combustion occurs in a RStoic reactor (labeled COM- production (Table 1). The obtained ‘‘Char Mix” characteristics are
BUST2) at 1100 °C and 1 bar. The exhaust gas, which is mainly reported in Table 2 and are used in a RYield reactor (labeled
composed of permanent gases, i.e. CO2, N2 and H2O, is cleaned in DECOMP2) to convert the element char rom a non-conventional
a filter that removes the ashes. The flue gas is finally cooled in a element to conventional elements. Char is burnt in a RStoic reactor
heat exchanger, decreasing its temperature to 150 °C. The heat (labeled BOILER2) and the flue gases are used to heat the thermal
extracted from the flue gas has been partially used to pre-heat oil exiting the HRVG using a heat exchanger (MHeatX). The flue
air streams from 25 °C to 250 °C. This is done both for gasification gases are then released in the atmosphere after a few cleaning
air and for the char combustion air. stages.
Nominal operating conditions (see Table S1) are characterized
2.3. Model for scenario 2 by an electrical output of 1.1 MWel and a return water temperature
of the district heating (DH) network of 58 °C; instead, partial load
The implementation of the second scenario foresees the model- operations correspond to a higher temperature of the return water
ing of an Organic Rankine Cycle, i.e. ORC generator coupled with a of the DH and consequently a lower electrical output.
biomass boiler. The model is validated by means of data set mea- In partial load operation, the mass flow of MDM has to be mod-
sured at a real scale plant located in the district of Renon in ified in order to keep the district heating supply temperature at
South-Tyrol (Italy) (Prando et al., 2015). This scenario considers 90 °C (nominal condition). To achieve this, a ‘‘design specs block”,
the collection of the char from the entire region and its combustion with a FORTRAN routine, was used.
in the ORC plant. The original plant scheme is modified including a The other input parameters that are affected by off-design con-
char burner. Fig. 1b shows the flowsheet of the model developed in ditions are the turbine isentropic efficiency, the condensing and
Aspen PlusÒ, which simulates a parallel co-combustion. This solu- evaporating pressure, the outlet temperature from the regenerator
tion is more expensive than direct co-combustion, requiring a sep- and the biomass mass flow.
arate burner; however it is more efficient (the combustion Regarding the isentropic efficiency, Prando et al. (2015) report
conditions can be set according to the characteristics of biomass the equation proposed by Keeley (1988):
and char separately) and it allows to use as much char as desired, " !#
p m_ v ;off  qd
without being constrained by the co-firing ratio (Agbor et al., gis;off ¼ gis;d  sin
_ v ;d  qoff
ð1Þ
2014). Furthermore, the heat generated by the combustion of the 2 m
two fuels is kept separated, allowing understanding and quantify-
ing, through the model, the benefits derived from the co- This equation was implemented in a calculator block that re-
combustion of char (Agbor et al., 2014). calculates the off-design isentropic efficiency every time the mass
The properties and the way to import the biomass in Aspen flow of MDM changes.
PlusÒ are the same as for the previous model (Section 2.3). Two To evaluate how the condensing and evaporating pressure
more substances were considered for this model: 1) change in off-design operation, a correlation among the measured
OctaMethylTriSiloxane: also known as MDM, with chemical for- data of the reference (Prando et al., 2015) was estimated. Known
mula C8H24Si3O2 which has been considered as working fluid of the mass flow rate (ṁ) and the corresponding pressures (P), the
the ORC cycle; 2) Dowtherm-RP: this component, available in the performance curves of the turbine and of the pump were deter-
Aspen PlusÒ database, has been used to simulate the thermal oil mined in the form of Eq. (2).
used in the boiler, i.e. Diphyl THT, given its similar thermophysical _ þcm
P ¼aþbm _2 ð2Þ
properties (molecular weight 236.4 g/mol, boiling temperature
352 °C, range of application 0–350 °C). where the three coefficients a, b, and c are 12.374, 1.633, and
Pre-heated air and biomass (Table 2) are fed together to a com- 0.0698 for condensation pressure and 983.18, 184.51, and
bustion RStoic reactor (labeled BOILER1). The hot flue gases first 4.1385 for evaporation pressure, respectively.
pass through a heat exchanger where heat is transferred to the
thermal oil and then a cyclone removes the solid particles (ash). 2.4. Assessment of the economic feasibility
Subsequently, a three-way valve, represented with a FSplit block
(labeled RECIRC), recirculates part of the flue gases to decrease A techno-economic analysis of the two proposed scenarios has
the production of nitrogen oxides. been carried out.
The hot thermal oil is used to heat at constant pressure the To estimate the profitability of the integrated char burner (Sce-
working fluid (MDM) of the ORC. In the HRVG the MDM vapor title nario 1), the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
passes from 0 to 1, becoming a dry saturated vapor; a super- should be compared with the advantages related to the direct com-
heating of 3 °C is adopted in the boiler to ensure the complete bustion of char, e.g. fuel saved to pre-heat gasification air, money
evaporation of the working fluid (Prando et al., 2015). The working saved in the disposal of char. Once the char is fully oxidized, the
fluid is then expanded in the turbine where the output pressure only residue is represented by the ashes, leading to a reduction
and the efficiencies (mechanical and isentropic) are given as input; in weight and a subsequent decrease of disposal costs. A parameter
this block generates the electrical work output by running a gener- named ‘‘gasification savings” (GS) has been defined as the relative
ator. Next, in the regenerator the vapor exchanges some of its difference between disposal costs with and without the integrated
enthalpy with the liquid working fluid, in order to increase the effi- char burner. The GS are strictly correlated with the ash content;
ciency of the overall cycle. Finally, the vapor enters the condenser the lower the amount, the higher the GS.
 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559 555

The following procedure has been applied in order to analyze

the variation of the cash flow due to the use of the char for the cen-
tralized char combustion plant (Scenario 2). The price of woodchip
has been assumed at 120 €/t and for char and ash disposal cost of
150 €/t has been considered (Patuzzi et al., 2015; Prando et al.,
2015). These costs are overall costs paid by the owners of the
plants - retrieved from them after a series of surveys and question-
naires - and include the cost of the raw material, the logistic fees
and the taxation. The 2008 (year of authorization of the ORC plant)
Italian price of electrical energy produced using biomass corre-
sponds to 0.28 €/kWh (‘‘Gestore Servizi Energetici,” n.d.). The cap-
ital costs of the equipment (Cost) have been determined using the
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI), which takes into
account the time value of money, and the exponential method,
known as the six-tenths rule (Green, 2008), which considers the
size of the boiler (Capacity):
 0:6  
CapacityB CEPCIyear2
Cost B ¼ Cost A   ð3Þ
CapacityA CEPCIyear1 Fig. 2. Heat production varying gasification temperatures for Technology A (Flue
gases heat = Exploitable heat from the flue gases; Gasification air heat = heat
where A and B refers to different size plants, year1 to the cost of required to pre-heat gasification air; Combustion air heat = heat required to pre-
plant A in the base year and year2 to the cost of plant B in the heat char combustion air; Total heat required = sum of the heat required to pre-heat
gasification and combustion air).
selected year. Capital costs are calculated using the annual average
value for 2018 (CEPCI = 603.1), 2008 is instead used as reference
year (CEPCI = 575.5).
critical temperatures is due to different mass flows and equiva-
Finally, Eq. (4) was used to determine the discounted payback
lence ratios.
time for both the scenarios:

IR  ð1 þ IRÞn 3.1.2. Assessment of the economic feasibility

A¼P ð4Þ Regarding the economic feasibility of the first scenario, char
ð1 þ IRÞn  1
combustion would always allow a reduction in the operating costs.
where A are the savings minus the O&M costs (5% of the capital cost Know the amount of char produced by each technology (Table 1), it
(Ail et al., 2017)), P the present worth capital cost, IR the interest was possible to evaluate the ‘‘gasification savings” (GS) for all the
rate and n the number of years to return the investment. Two inter- technologies (Table 3). The owners of the gasification plants would
est rates are 0% and 2.3% (02.05.2019) are considered. be able to save 72% (A), 84% (B), 50% (C), 69% (D), 87% (E), 94% (F),
71% (G) and 74% (H) of the disposal costs per ton of char. The GS are
3. Results and discussion linearly correlated with the amount of char produced, but there is
not a correlation with the size of the plant. This is mainly related to
3.1. First scenario: Dedicated char burner the difference in char production of the different technologies
operating at different conditions.
The main parameter which has been used to evaluate the
results is the gasification temperature, which strongly affects the 3.1.3. Payback time
production of char. The producer gas heating values measured in The capital cost of a char burner (ṁ=1–2 kg/h of char) currently
the real plants are used to validate the model. The model results on the market is approximately 15,000 €. This datum was obtained
are close enough to the measured data with relative difference by an equipment vendor through personal communication. The
ranging from 0.6% to 5.64% (see Fig. S1). payback time is evaluated by solving Equation (4). The char pro-
duction of some technologies is out of the range for the char bur-
3.1.1. Gasification temperature ner. The analysis was then performed considering more
Char production is correlated with gasification temperature. gasification or char burner modules. Table 4 reports the payback
Ash mass flow is considered as constant since it does not react dur- time for technology B, D and G. The payback times in the present
ing the gasification process; on the other hand, the production of study are extremely variable – ranging from 3 to 21 years - and
solid carbon decreases with increasing temperature, reaching the depends on the char production and composition and therefore
zero value in a temperature range between 669 °C and 733 °C. on the operating conditions of the gasifier, i.e. equivalence ratio
With higher gasification temperature, no heat could be exploited. and temperature. For this reason, three out of eight technologies
Fig. 2 reports a sensitivity analysis which shows how the heat (B, D and G) that can achieve a reasonable payback time, i.e. lower
produced by the char combustion (evaluated by enthalpy differ- than 10 years, are shown. For the other technologies, the payback
ence) changes by varying the gasification temperature. The point time is less interesting, and each plant should be investigated
where the available heat becomes lower than the total heat before the investment.
required (heat required to pre-heat gasification and combustion
air) has been called ‘‘critical point” and it represents a technical 3.2. Second scenario: Centralized char combustion
limit for the feasibility of the plant. When the gasification temper-
ature is lower than the one of the critical point, the heat developed In this section, the main parameters (i.e. mass flows, tempera-
by cooling the flue gas is enough to satisfy the requirements; tures, pressures, efficiencies), which were used to run the model
otherwise, the heat would not satisfy the needs. The plot is similar relevant to the second scenario are analyzed, considering both
for all the technologies and here just the one for technology A is nominal and partial load operation modes. Furthermore, an assess-
reported. The temperatures of the critical points for the eight ment of the techno-economic feasibility of this scenario is
technologies varies between 649 °C and 714 °C. The difference in performed.
556 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559

Table 3
Gasification plant char disposal savings.

Technology A B C D E F G H
Electrical output [kWel/module] 45 180 150 300 50 250 440 140
Ash [%wtdry] 27.84 16.08 49.52 31.50 13.34 6.49 29.16 25.64
Char [kg/year/module] 2982 25,218 21,977 111,293 7811 136,980 70,000 2000
Savings [€/year/module] 323 3174 1664 11,435 1015 19,213 7438 223

Table 4
Payback time of the char burner.

Technology IR Savings – O&M Capital cost Payback time

[%] [€] [€] [years]
B 0.0% 2424 15,000 6.2
2.3% 6.7
D 0.0% 9935 30,000 3.0
2.3% 3.2
G 0.0% 5938 30,000 5.1
2.3% 5.4

The model data of the ORC cycle were validated using experi- mass flow rate would reach the lowest value (148 kg/h). For
mental data (see Table S2). It is worth observing how the two instance, considering 8000 h per year as operating time of the
data-set are in good agreement. Major deviations can be noticed ORC plant, which correspond to a char mass flow rate of 162 kg/
on the thermal power values. h, the biomass mass flow is 1668 kg/h. This allows estimating that
there could be a reduction of approximately 200 kg/h of biomass
3.2.1. Operating conditions needed for the actual operation of the boiler. The amount of substi-
The operating parameters were evaluated as a function of the tuted biomass is higher than the char mass flow due to its higher
return water temperature of the DH network, i.e. the temperature heating value.
value relevant to the water stream coming back from the sec- The change in biomass consumption affects the cash flow (i.e.
ondary heat exchangers of the users to the condenser of the ORC in, net and savings) for the plant operated with just biomass or
cycle. This parameter is a relevant indicator of the working condi- in co-combustion mode (see Fig. S5). The production of electrical
tions of the plant. An increase of the return water temperature energy is the same, while the outgoing cash flow, composed of bio-
leads to a reduction both of the MDM mass flow and of the turbine mass purchase and ash disposal costs, varies. Since, in co-firing
electrical output power. The change in MDM mass flow is also cor- operation mode, the input biomass is lower, also the costs for bio-
related with the variation of evaporating and condensation pres- mass and for ashes disposal are lower. This increases the net cash
sures (see Fig. S2). The two curves perfectly respect the data of flow, increasing the revenues. It is worth noticing that net savings
the reference (Prando et al., 2015). do not depend on the user load, which means that for any operat-
The cold side inlet temperature at the condenser increases with ing conditions, there is a reduction in the operating costs. The sav-
an increase of the condensing pressure. To avoid a temperature ings related to this scenario amount to approximately 235,000 €/
crossover and to keep a minimum temperature difference year. By keeping constant the char composition, this value varies
(5 ± 0.5 °C) between both sides of the heat exchanger, the cold side linearly with the char production.
outlet temperature of the regenerator has to decrease, from its It is also interesting to evaluate how the savings may vary by
nominal condition of 195 °C (see Fig. S3). changing the characteristics of the char mix. Fig. 3 confirm that
In partial load operating conditions, because of a decreased the savings using the char mix would be 235,000 €/year; instead,
cooling effect on the ORC engine by the water of the district net- if a char with a higher heating value and lower ash content (tech-
work, the temperature of the thermal oil after the HRVG increases nology F) would be used, the savings could be higher (304,000 €/
and consequently also the one of the flue gases. A design specs year). The lowest savings are achieved with the char of technology
block was then used to modulate the boiler thermal load, changing C that has the lowest heating value and higher ash content (153 €/
the amount of input biomass (between 0 and the nominal value of year).
1875 kg/h), in order to keep the temperature difference between The owners of the gasification plants in South-Tyrol could save
the exiting flue gases and the return oil at 25 ± 1 °C (see Fig. S4). on the disposal of char. They would have to pay to the ORC plant
Hence, it is highlighted in this paragraph how the model can prop- manager just the costs for the disposal of ashes and not for the car-
erly predict both nominal and partial load operating conditions. bon included in the char. The savings would be approximately as
the one of Table 3. However, it should be considered that the char
should be transported to a central plant and not burnt in situ. Nev-
3.2.2. Assessment of the economic feasibility
ertheless, the plant of Renon is in a central position in the South
The simulation model for the second scenario is based on the
Tyrol region and almost all the char transporting trucks are already
idea of utilizing all the available char to substitute a fraction of
driving by the ORC plant.
the biomass input, maintaining the design operating conditions
of the ORC plant. The analysis is performed considering the utiliza-
tion of the whole amount of char produced in South-Tyrol in one 3.2.3. Payback time
year, which is then assumed as the design value of the char annual The capital cost of the ORC plant of Renon was used to evaluate
mass available. Thus, the mass flow rate (as kg per hours) is strictly the payback time of the investment for the centralized char com-
correlated to the annual operating hours of the ORC plant. The bustion system. The data have been provided by the manager of
lower the number of hours the higher the char mass flow rate. If the plant (‘‘Rottensteiner, Hansjörg, personal communication,” n.
instead the plant could work for all the year with no stops, the char d.). The plant components considered in the calculations are
 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559 557

is immediately burnt, could maximize the savings of the gasifica-

tion plant owners. In fact, this scenario would avoid the transport
of the carbon, but not of the ashes. On the other hand, it should not
be taken for granted that an adequate payback time could be
reached also due to the low char production of some gasification
plants. The economic analysis shows that just 3 out of 8 gasifica-
tion technologies can achieve an adequate payback time. For tech-
nology B, D and G the payback time varies between 3 and 7 years.
Regarding the centralized char combustion plant, in which the
char is transported to a single combustion plant, the savings of
the gasification plant owners would be slightly lower, compared
to the other scenario, due to the need to transport to the central
plant also carbon and not just ashes. However, the gasification
plant owners would not have to bear any capital costs. This second
scenario would bring advantages also to the owners of the ORC
plant. The savings are greater in this scenario and the payback time
of the new equipment and installation costs that should be pur-
chased for the char combustion is approximately 7 years.
If heat recovery is not of main concern, a simple combustion of
the char (first scenario) would allow strongly reducing the disposal
costs, but the payback time is highly variable. On the other hand,
considering also an environmentally friendly point of view, the
second scenario would represent the most interesting solution in
South Tyrol and in other regions of the world. This scenario would
reduce the disposal costs and could exploit energy from the char
with an adequate payback time.

4. Conclusions

In this study, two process simulation models for the production

of energy from biomass gasification char were developed. All the
models were firstly validated with experimental results and then
char combustion units (not present in the real plant) were added.
Fig. 3. Savings as a function of (a) heating value and (b) ash content (ṁchar = 1300
The first developed model considers the local utilization of char
ton/year). at the gasification plant; the results show that this scenario is
not always feasible. The advantages and the savings are strictly
correlated to the char production and composition and therefore
relevant to the char combustion circuit, i.e. the boiler, the heat to the operating conditions of the gasifier, i.e. temperature and
exchanger between the flue gases and the thermal oil and all the equivalence ratio. The owners of the plants could save on the char
equipment used for the flue gases cleaning. The investment costs disposal costs from 50% to 94%. A payback time lower than 10 years
relevant to 2008 were approximately 3,100,000.0 € (i.e. cost of can be achieved just for three of the eight selected technologies
the whole biomass combustion system of 5.9 MW capacity). Then, and it ranges from 3 to 7 years.
using Equation (4), the current capital cost of the char combustion The second model, which considers the collection of char from
system was evaluated as 1,150,000 € considering a boiler with a the entire South-Tyrol region and its combustion in an ORC plant,
capacity of 1.05 MW. The calculation was carried out as for the exhibits also interesting results. The analysis has shown how sav-
other scenario and the results are reported in Table 5. ings can be achieved for both the owner of the ORC plant and the
The results show that, given the savings previously assessed, i.e. owners of the gasification plants, which have to dispose char.
235,000 €/year, the payback time results to be 7.1 years (6.5 years The former could save on the disposal costs, by affording those of
in case of no money loan with 0% IR), which means that the system just the ashes, after burning the char in the central plant. Instead,
would become remunerative in an adequate time, considering an the owner of the ORC plant could save approximately 235,000 €/
expected plant lifetime of 20 years. year. The time to return from the investment is approximately
7 years (6.5 years in case of 0% interest rate). As reported before
the points of main interests are that the savings are pretty much
3.3. Comparison between the dedicated and centralized char constant along the year and they do not depend on the user load
utilization plants or on the number of operating hours. It should be considered that
these results are variable, and they depend on the estimation of the
The two different scenarios have both advantages and disad- amount of char produced every year and, on its composition,
vantages. The dedicated char combustion plant, in which the char (mainly heating value and ash content).

Table 5
Payback time of the char combustion equipment (ṁchar = 1300 t/year). Declaration of Competing Interest

IR [%] Savings – O&M [€] Capital cost [€2018] Payback time [years]
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
0.0% 177,158 1,150,000 6.5 cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
2.3% 7.1
to influence the work reported in this paper.
558 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559

Acknowledgments Galhetas, M., Lopes, H., Freire, M., Abelha, P., Pinto, F., Gulyurtlu, I., 2012.
Characterization, leachability and valorization through combustion of residual
chars from gasification of coals with pine. Waste Manage. 32, 769–779. https://
The authors acknowledge the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.08.021.
Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano – Alto Adige, Ripartizione Diritto Gamiño, B., Aguillón, J., 2010. Numerical simulation of syngas combustion with a
multi-spark ignition system in a diesel engine adapted to work at the Otto cycle.
allo studio, Università e ricerca scientifica for the financial support
Fuel 89, 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.06.030.
to the NEXT GENERATION project: ‘‘Novel EXTension of biomass Gestore Servizi Energetici [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.gse.it.
polyGENERATION to small scale gasification systems in South- Hernandez, J.J., Lapuerta, M., Monedero, E., 2016. Characterisation of residual char
from biomass gasification: effect of the gasifier operating conditions. J. Clean.
Tyrol”, CUP B56J16000780003, contract number: 20/34
Prod. 138, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.120.
03.11.2016. Kastanaki, E., Vamvuka, D., 2006. A comparative reactivity and kinetic study on the
combustion of coal-biomass char blends. Fuel 85, 1186–1193. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2005.11.004.
Appendix A. Supplementary material Keeley, K.R., 1988. A theoretical investigation of the part-load characteristics of LP
steam turbine stages. Memo. RD/L/ES0817/M88, Cent. Electr. Gener. Board.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at Khiari, B., Jeguirim, M., Limousy, L., Bennici, S., 2019. Biomass derived chars for
energy applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 108, 253–273. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.038. 10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.057.
Marchelli, F., Cordioli, E., Patuzzi, F., Sisani, E., Barelli, L., Baratieri, M., Arato, E.,
References Bosio, B., 2019. Biomass and Bioenergy Experimental study on H 2 S adsorption
on gasification char under different operative conditions. Biomass Bioenergy
126, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.05.003.
Abu El-Rub, Z., Bramer, E.A., Brem, G., 2008. Experimental comparison of biomass McNamee, P., Darvell, L.I., Jones, J.M., Williams, A., 2015. The combustion
chars with other catalysts for tar reduction. Fuel 87, 2243–2252. https://doi.org/ characteristics of high-heating-rate chars from untreated and torrefied
10.1016/j.fuel.2008.01.004. biomass fuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Agbor, E., Zhang, X., Kumar, A., 2014. A review of biomass co-firing in North biombioe.2015.05.016.
America. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40, 930–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Megwai, G.U., Richards, T., 2016. A techno-economic analysis of biomass power
rser.2014.07.195. systems using Aspen plus. Int. J. Power Renew. Energy Syst. 3, 25–36.
Ail, S.S., Mukunda, H.S., Mahapatra, S., Dasappa, S., 2017. Fischer-Tropsch route for Molintas, H., Gupta, A.K., 2016. Combustion of spherically shaped large wood char
the conversion of biomass to liquid fuels - Technical and economic analysis. particles. Fuel Process. Technol. 148, 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Energy 130, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.101. j.fuproc.2016.02.029.
Alburquerque, J.A., Sanchez, M.E., Mora, M., Barron, V., 2016. Slow pyrolysis of Monteiro, E., Bellenoue, M., Sottton, J., Rouboa, A., 2012. Syngas application to spark
relevant biomasses in the Mediterranean basin. Part 2. Char characterisation for ignition engine working simulations by use of rapid compression machine.
carbon sequestration and agricultural uses. J. Clean. Prod. 120, 191–197. https:// Intern. Combust. Engines 51–74. https://doi.org/10.5772/48088.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.080. Patuzzi, F., Prando, D., Vakalis, S., Rizzo, A.M., Chiaramonti, D., Andreasi, D., Dal
Aspen Plus - Webpage [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.aspentech.com/ Savio, S., Mair, K., Tirler, W., Mimmo, T., Gasparella, A., Baratieri, M., 2015. GAST
products/engineering/aspen-plus/. project ‘‘Gasification Experiences in South Tyrol: energy and environmental
Aspen Plus User Guide 10.2, 2000. assessment” - Final Report.
Backreedy, R.I., Jones, J.M., Pourkashanian, M., Williams, A., 2003. Burn-out of Patuzzi, F., Prando, D., Vakalis, S., Rizzo, A.M., Chiaramonti, D., Tirler, W., Mimmo, T.,
pulverised coal and biomass chars. Fuel 82, 2097–2105. https://doi.org/ Gasparella, A., Baratieri, M., 2016. Small-scale biomass gasification CHP
10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00174-1. systems: Comparative performance assessment and monitoring experiences
Barbanera, M., Cotana, F., Di Matteo, U., 2018. Co-combustion performance and in South Tyrol (Italy). Energy 112, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
kinetic study of solid digestate with gasification biochar. Renew. Energy 121, energy.2016.06.077.
597–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.076. Pereira, C.C., Pinho, C., 2013. Determination of fluidized bed combustion kinetic and
Basso, D., Patuzzi, F., Gasparella, A., Tirler, W., Dal Savio, S., Rizzo, A.M., Chiaramonti, diffusive data of four wood chars from the central region of Portugal. Energy
D., Baratieri, M., 2017. Valorization pathways for char from small scale Fuels 27, 7521–7530. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4017834.
gasification systems in South-Tyrol: the ‘‘NEXT GENERATION” project. In: Prando, D., Renzi, M., Gasparella, A., Baratieri, M., 2015. Monitoring of the energy
25th Eur Biomass Conf. Exhib. 2017, pp. 747–750. https://doi.org/10.5071/ performance of a district heating CHP plant based on biomass boiler and ORC
25thEUBCE2017-2CV.3.10. generator. Appl. Therm. Eng. 79, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Benedetti, V., Patuzzi, F., Baratieri, M., 2018. Characterization of char from biomass applthermaleng.2014.12.063.
gasification and its similarities with activated carbon in adsorption Ramos, M., Rangel, N., Pinho, C., 2012. Fluidized-bed combustion of selected wood
applications. Appl. Energy 227, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chars from the semi-arid northeastern region of Brazil. Energy Fuels 26, 400–
apenergy.2017.08.076. 406. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef201354f.
Benedetti, V., Patuzzi, F., Baratieri, M., 2016. Gasification char as a potential Rottensteiner, Hansjörg, personal communication, n.d.
substitute of activated carbon in adsorption applications. Energy Procedia 00. Safarian, S., Unnþórsson, R., Richter, C., 2019. A review of biomass gasification
British Petroleum, 2016. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2016. modelling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 110, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.172. rser.2019.05.003.
Cordioli, E., Patuzzi, F., Baratieri, M., 2018. Thermal degradation and tar removal Sahu, S.G., Sarkar, P., Chakraborty, N., Adak, A.K., 2010. Thermogravimetric
potential of biomass char from commercial gasifiers. In: 26th Eur Biomass Conf. assessment of combustion characteristics of blends of a coal with different
Exhib, p. 800. biomass chars. Fuel Process. Technol. 91, 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Cruz, P.L., Iribarren, D., Dufour, J., 2017. Exergy analysis of alternative configurations j.fuproc.2009.12.001.
of a system coproducing synthetic fuels and electricity via biomass gasification, Sarkar, P., Sahu, S.G., Mukherjee, A., Kumar, M., Adak, A.K., Chakraborty, N., Biswas,
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and a combined-cycle scheme. Fuel 194, 375–394. S., 2014. Co-combustion studies for potential application of sawdust or its low
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.01.017. temperature char as co-fuel with coal. Appl. Therm. Eng. 63, 616–623. https://
Directorate-General for Energy, 2011. Energy 2020 [WWW Document]. URL https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.11.069.
ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2011_energy2020_en_0.pdf. Spliethoff, H., 2010. Power Generation from Solid Fuels. Springer.
Don W. Green, R.H.P., 2008. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. Tiwary, S., Ghugare, S.B., Chavan, P.D., Saha, S., Datta, S., Sahu, G., Tambe, S.S., 2018.
Eddings, E.G., McAvoy, D., Coates, R.L., 2015. Co-firing of pulverized coal with Pinion Co-gasification of high ash coal-biomass blends in a fluidized bed gasifier:
Pine/Juniper wood in raw, torrefied and pyrolyzed forms. Fuel Process. Technol. experimental study and computational intelligence-based modeling. Waste
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.11.020. Biomass Valoriz., 1–19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0378-7.
EIA, 2017. International Energy Outlook 2017 Overview, U.S. Energy Information United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2016. The Paris
Administration. www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf. Agreement [WWW Document]. URL http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/
Fan, J., Hong, H., Zhang, L., Li, L., Jin, H., 2017. Thermodynamic performance of SNG 9485.php.
and power coproduction from MSW with recovery of chemical unreacted gas. Vakalis, S., Sotiropoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Malamis, D., Baratieri, M., 2016.
Waste Manage. 67, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.031. Utilisation of biomass gasification by-products for onsite energy production.
Fisher, E.M., Dupont, C., Darvell, L.I., Commandré, J.M., Saddawi, A., Jones, J.M., Waste Manage. Res. 34, 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16643178.
Grateau, M., Nocquet, T., Salvador, S., 2012. Combustion and gasification Wornat, M.J., Hurt, R.H., Davis, K.A., Yang, N.Y.C., 1996. Single-particle combustion
characteristics of chars from raw and torrefied biomass. Bioresour. Technol. of two biomass chars. Symp. Combust. 26, 3075–3083. https://doi.org/10.1016/
119, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.109. S0082-0784(96)80151-2.
Formica, M., Frigo, S., Gabbrielli, R., 2016. Development of a new steady state zero- Wornat, M.J., Hurt, R.H., Yang, N.Y.C., Headley, T.J., 1995. Structural and
dimensional simulation model for woody biomass gasification in a full scale compositional transformations of biomass chars during combustion. Combust.
plant. Energy Convers. Manage. 120, 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Flame 100, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(94)00055-W.
enconman.2016.05.009.
 S. Piazzi et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 550–559 559

Yi, Q., Qi, F., Cheng, G., Zhang, Y., Xiao, B., Hu, Z., Liu, S., Cai, H., Xu, S., 2013. Zang, G., Jia, J., Shi, Y., Sharma, T., Ratner, A., 2019. Modeling and economic analysis
Thermogravimetric analysis of co-combustion of biomass and biochar. J. Therm. of waste tire gasification in fluidized and fixed bed gasifiers. Waste Manage. 89,
Anal. Calorim. 112, 1475–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-012-2744-1. 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.070.
Yilgin, M., Pehlivan, D., 2009. Volatiles and char combustion rates of demineralised
lignite and wood blends. Appl. Energy 86, 1179–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2008.11.002.