Techno-environmental-economic assessment on municipal solid waste to methanol coupling with/without solid oxygen electrolysis cell unit

Sun, Yong; Qin, Zhen; Tang, Yuhan; Liao, Chengfeng; Liu, Yuchen; Ma, Xiaoqian

doi:10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.060

Cited by 29 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main assumptions for the gasification, syngas cleaning, and methanol synthesis units are consistent with the works by Poluzzi et al [11,23]. In addition, the SOEC is designed and modeled based on previous similar studies such as [14,17]. A description of the various components of the plant and the modelling methods are outlined in the following sections.…”

Section: Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Sun et al. [14] conducted a study on integrating municipal solid waste gasification and solar electrical energy to produce Methanol. They compared three system configurations: municipal solid waste-tomethanol with carbon capture and storage, municipal solid waste-tomethanol with a SOEC unit, and municipal solid waste incineration for power generation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Techno-Economic Evaluation of Biomass-to-Methanol Production Via Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier and Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: A Comparative Study

Rajaee,

Guandalini,

Romano

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Plant Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Techno-Economic Evaluation of Biomass-to-Methanol Production Via Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier and Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: A Comparative Study

Rajaee,

Guandalini,

Romano

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sun et al [82] simulated and compared, among others, MSW to methanol integrated with CCS and conventional WtE (only power production), in the Chinese context, not including, within the system boundary, the fate of fractions separated upstream the gasification. Rather obviously, the MSW to methanol with CCS obtained better performances in terms of climate change than the traditional WtE, likely because of the CCS contribution.…”

Section: Waste To Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Recovery from Residual Municipal Solid Waste: State of the Art and Perspectives within the Challenge to Climate Change

Lombardi,

Castaldi

2024

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the technologies for the recovery of energy from waste, in particular residual municipal solid waste (rMSW), combustion is the most widely used thermo-chemical treatment process associated with thermal and electric power production by a steam cycle, named, shortly, Waste to Energy (WtE). Today, more than 500 WtE plants in the EU, about 400 in China and 76 in the USA are in operation, based on efficient technologies and advanced air pollution control systems. Energy recovery can be accomplished also by means of gasification; however, the presence of impurities together with the atmospheric pressure, at which syngas is normally produced, impose the feeding of syngas to a conventional steam cycle, leading to generally lower performances than WtE. The energy recovered by WtE offsets traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and related emissions, providing savings in term of climate change. However, the savings obtainable by replacing electricity and/or heat will diminish as the energy systems will hopefully become increasingly renewable. Over this medium–long-term horizon, one possibility is to capture the CO2 from WtE flue gases and to store/use it. From the life cycle assessment perspective, it has been calculated that the introduction of CO2 capture and storage in WtE, despite energy penalties, is able to reduce the impact on climate change. The alternative approach, proposed to contain the emissions of greenhouse gases in the thermal treatment of waste, is using the carbon contained in it to produce commonly used chemical compounds (waste to chemicals). The benefits, in terms of reductions of greenhouse gases, are expected from the possibility of obtaining chemicals that can replace their analogue normally produced from fossil sources. To date, only one WtC demonstration plant is operating by being fed by rMSW-derived waste, and some similar initiatives are planned, but still adequate assurances in terms of robust knowledge of the involved complex processes, above all, if applied to highly inhomogeneous feed streams such as those obtained from rMSW, are not available. Once the several initiatives come to completion, it will enable waste management professionals to assess performance and to begin to consider such a facility in their planning.

show abstract

“…Yang et al (2022) proposed a stepwise catalytic reaction of steam and biochar to increase the ratio of hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the syngas through biomass gasification 38 (Yang et al, 2022). Sun et al (2022) compared the conversion efficiency, environmental impact, and economics of three types of processes (the integrated process of carbon capture and carbon storage, the process using solid oxygen electrolysis unit, the process using power generation by waste incineration) to convert municipal solid waste to methanol (Sun et al, 2022). Park et al (2021) identified the optimum temperature conditions and the challenge of agglomerate generation in a fluidized bed reactor for biomass gasification using rice husk (Park et al, 2021).…”

Section: Emerging Prediction In Biomass Energy Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Scientific Structure in Biomass-based Hydrogen from a Cross-domain Perspective

Okuda,

Sasaki

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass-based hydrogen production is an innovative approach to realize carbon-neutral energy solutions. Despite their promise, both structures differ in terms of the biomass energy domain, which is at the entry point of the technology, and the hydrogen energy domain, which is at the exit point of the technology. In this study, we conducted structural and predictive analyses by cross domain bibliometric analysis to clarify the differences in the structures and perspectives of researchers in cross domains and to suggest ways to strengthen collaboration to promote innovation. Our study reveals that the hydrogen energy domain has a balanced discussion on realizing a hydrogen society using biomass-based hydrogen production technology, while the biomass energy domain has a strong interest in the process of processing biomass. We find that changing perspectives in any academic domain presents a different structure. This comparative analysis reveals the importance of synergistic progress through interdisciplinary efforts. By filling these gaps, our findings contribute to a roadmap for future research and policy development in renewable energy and highlight the importance of a unified approach to sustainable hydrogen production.

show abstract

Techno-environmental-economic assessment on municipal solid waste to methanol coupling with/without solid oxygen electrolysis cell unit

Cited by 29 publications

References 99 publications

Techno-Economic Evaluation of Biomass-to-Methanol Production Via Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier and Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: A Comparative Study

Techno-Economic Evaluation of Biomass-to-Methanol Production Via Circulating Fluidized Bed Gasifier and Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells: A Comparative Study

Energy Recovery from Residual Municipal Solid Waste: State of the Art and Perspectives within the Challenge to Climate Change

Comparative Assessment of Scientific Structure in Biomass-based Hydrogen from a Cross-domain Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About