4.7 Article

Economic dispatch of torrefied biomass polygeneration systems considering power/SNG grid demands

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 196, Issue -, Pages 707-719

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.007

Keywords

Biomass gasification; Polygeneration; Energy allocation; Optimization; Economics

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of R.O.C. (Taiwan) [1102221E006024]
  2. National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan [NCKU 90]
  3. Beyond for Research Fellow [HUB110-22T-3-028, D111-G2316]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A torrefied biomass polygeneration system has been developed to simultaneously produce electricity, hydrogen, and synthetic natural gas. Three different frameworks are proposed to meet the daily energy demands, and the results show that the third framework has lower operating costs and levelized cost of energy compared to the second framework.
A torrefied biomass polygeneration system (TBPGS) composed of a torrefied biomass gasification process, a combined cycle system, a water-gas-shift reactor (WGSR) process, and a CO methanation process, is developed to produce electricity, hydrogen, and synthetic natural gas (SNG) simultaneously. To cope with the daily energy patterns of power/SNG grid demands, three frameworks are addressed. The TBPGS is directly connected to power/SNG grids as the first framework (FW1). It is found that FW1 cannot cope with the SNG/power demand patterns due to SNG shortages appeared in some time intervals. To increase the operational flexibility of TBPGS, the TBPGS is connected to a combination of compressed hydrogen tank and PEM fuel cell stack as the second framework (FW2) and the TBPGS is connected to an SNG tank as the third framework (FW3). Based on the optimal allocation strategy for minimizing the daily net operating costs of FW2 and FW3, the comparative results show that (i) the total capital cost (TCI) of FW3 is lower than FW2 by 36.9%, (ii) the total operating cost (TOC) of FW3 is lower than FW2 by 5.4%, and (iii) the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of FW3 is lower than FW2 by 31.7%. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available