Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2020 Mar 26;5(13):7074–7084. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b03049

Biodiesel and Hydrogen Production in a Combined Palm and Jatropha Biomass Biorefinery: Simulation, Techno-Economic, and Environmental Evaluation

Antonio Niño-Villalobos †, Jaime Puello-Yarce †, Ángel Darío González-Delgado ‡,*, K A Ojeda †, Eduardo Sánchez-Tuirán †
PMCID: PMC7143409  PMID: 32280848

Abstract

graphic file with name ao9b03049_0008.jpg

The biodiesel from lignocellulosic materials has been widely recognized as an alternative fuel to meet energy requirements worldwide, facing fossil fuel depletion, and emerging energy policies. In this work, the biorefinery approach was applied for biodiesel production from jatropha and palm oils in order to make it economically competitive by the utilization of residual biomass as the feedstock for obtaining hydrogen via steam reforming of glycerol and gasification. The linear chains for hydrogen and diesel were simulated using UniSim software and main stream properties were collected from the literature or predicted by correlations. The proposed scheme of biorefinery was analyzed through environmental and techno-economic assessment to identify the feasibility of this process to be implemented. Three different blends of oils (JO10-PO90, JO20-PO80, and JO30-PO70) were considered in the environmental analysis to determine alternatives for reducing potential environmental impacts (PEIs). It was found that the acidification potential highly contributed to the environmental impacts attributed to the use of fossil fuels for heating requirements, and JO30-PO70 blend exhibited the lowest PEI value. The economic indicators were calculated to be 8,455,147.29 $USD and 33.18% for the net present value and internal rate of return, respectively. These results revealed that the proposed combined biomass biorefinery is feasible to be scaled up without causing significant negative impacts on the environment.

1. Introduction

Recently, the development of clean energy sources has become necessary in order to meet energy demands because of the rapid population increase, massive industrialization worldwide, and environmental concerns.1,2 In addition, energy policies have encouraged the use of renewable sources to assure sustainable development and energy security.3 Biodiesel from lignocellulosic biomass seems to be an attractive alternative for fossil fuel substitution because of its favorable emission profiles, renewability, nontoxicity, high cetane number, and good lubricity.4,5 Several raw materials derived from forestry, agriculture, and agro-industrial wastes exhibit good properties as feedstocks for biodiesel production.6 Vegetable oils from palm, coconut moringa, and soybean, among others, have been widely used as alternative fuels because they do not contribute to the global carbon dioxide buildup.7 The transformation of these oils into biodiesel is carried out by the transesterification process using alcohol (methanol or ethanol).8,9

The oil palm is a perennial tree that remains competitive because of the increment of the yield per unit area.10 The high oil content of this crop allows being used as a potential source of renewable energy.11 The Jatropha curcas L. is a drought-resistant crop that grows in the tropical and subtropical world.12 It is a poisonous, semi-evergreen shrub reaching a height up to 6 m that may cause gastrointestinal issues after human ingestion.13 Despite its high toxicity, oil content of the jatropha seed is about 300–400 g/kg which makes it an appropriate alternative feedstock for bioenergy production.14 However, the low conversion and energy utilization inefficiencies concerning biodiesel production from jatropha seeds represent a drawback that can be solved by forming oil blends as palm and jatropha oils.15 The use of these lignocellulosic feedstocks reduces the biodiesel production costs because of its low price and abundance.16

The single biodiesel-oriented manufacturing plants are not economically competitive against oil refineries and alternative utilization paths have been investigated in order to overcome these drawbacks.17 The biorefinery concept represents an alternative for the integrated use of the biodiesel industry-derived wastes generating a suite of products as hydrogen.18 This concept is based on biomass conversion processes to produce power, fuel, and chemicals such as biodiesel, biohydrogen, and biomethane.19 For example, the crude glycerol obtained during biodiesel production is used to produce gaseous fuels by steam reforming and biomass gasification.20,21 The application of biorefinery for biomass valorization offers several benefits because of the diversification in feedstocks and products while addressing sustainability goals.22

The scheme of a biorefinery requires to be evaluated by different computer-aided tools such as techno-economic analysis and environmental assessment. These tools allow to assess the potential economic feasibility of bioenergy chains and understand its environmental performance.23 Numerous methodologies have been developed to assess the performance of chemical processes in the early conceptual design phase under a sustainability concept. Moreno-Sader et al.24 applied the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts to quantify the environmental impacts of palm oil production based on the emission media. Romero-Perez et al.25 used the techno-economic sensitivity analysis to identify operating variables that most contributed to the economic performance of palm oil biorefinery. Meramo-Hurtado et al.26 used the waste reduction algorithm (WAR) to determine the potential environmental impacts (PEIs) related to the industrial production of levulinic acid via acid-catalyzed dehydration.

Several works have addressed the synthesis and evaluation of biorefineries from J. curcas L. and oil palm in order to face the drawbacks of biodiesel industries using lignocellulosic materials. Table 1 summarizes recent contributions found in the literature about these feedstocks in biorefinery approaches. For example, Navarro-Pineda et al.27 developed a conceptual design of biorefinery for the exploitation of J. curcas considering traditional biodiesel production with glycerin as the co-product as well as thermochemical transformation of biomass into bio-oil, bio-char, and heat. The authors evaluated the sustainability of this design under renewability, economic, environmental, and community development categories and reported promising results. Herrera-Aristizábal et al.28 performed environmental assessment of a palm-based biorefinery in North Colombia using WAR and found negative values for total generation of PEI as well as significant impacts on atmospheric categories. According to this literature review, there is a knowledge gap on the use of combined J. curcas and oil palm under a biorefinery approach to obtain high value products such as biodiesel blends.

Table 1. Recent Works on J. curcas L. and Oil Palm-Based Biorefineries.

biorefinery feedstock environmental analysis techno-economic analysis references
J. curcas x x Navarro-Pineda et al.27
oil palm x   Batlle et al.29
J. curcas     Navarro-Pineda et al.30
J. curcas x   Martinez-Hernandez et al.31
J. curcas     Vivas and Collado32
J. curcas x x Martinez-Hernandez et al.33
J. curcas and microalgae   x Giwa et al.1
oil palm x x Garcia-Nuñez et al.34
oil palm x   Herrera-Aristizábal et al.28
oil palm   x Romero-Perez et al.25
Open in a new tab

The aim of this work is to apply the biorefinery concept for biodiesel production from J. curcas and palm oils and utilization of processing wastes to convert residual biomass and glycerol into hydrogen. To this end, a combined biomass biorefinery was simulated using UniSim software to obtain extended mass and energy balances. After the conceptual design and simulation, the feasibility of the process was evaluated using a techno-economic analysis tool. The PEIs were quantified via WAR under the atmospheric and toxicological categories of impacts. These assessments provided insights about the sustainability of the biodiesel production from both biomasses.

2. Methods

The methodology followed in this work addressed the conceptual design of the combined biomass biorefinery based on the information available in the literature for these types of biomasses (J. curcas and African oil palm). The chemical composition of biomasses and main operating conditions for biomass transformation into high-value products were collected from several contributions. In this case, hydrogen and biodiesel were the products of the biorefinery. After designing the entire process, the biorefinery was simulated in UniSim software, which provided extended mass and energy balances. To validate simulation results, production yields provided by software were compared with those reported in the literature at the experimental level. These process data were entered into the computer-aided tools selected for the evaluation of economic and environmental performance of the entire biorefinery.

2.1. Process Description

The general scheme of the combined biomass biorefinery from jatropha and palm oils is shown in Figure 1. The selected feedstocks exhibit a high content of free fatty acids (FFAs) that are transformed into biodiesel by alkaline transesterification. For African palm oil, the FFA content was 1.25% wt, while J. curcas oil accounted for 15.04% wt of FFA. The extraction of both oils generates a huge amount of lignocellulosic wastes, which can be used for producing high-value products. The proposed biorefinery involves the utilization of these lignocellulosic materials for producing hydrogen via a gasification technique. The glycerol obtained from the transesterification reaction is also considered for energy production by steam reforming. In this context, the conceptual design of the combined biorefinery includes four main sections: (i) biodiesel production from oils through alkaline transesterification, (ii) steam reforming of glycerol, (iii) biomass gasification, and (iv) hydrogen purification.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Scheme of the combined biomass biorefinery.

The process of extracting oils is not covered in this work, hence, the amount of the residual lignocellulosic material generated during oil extraction was estimated according to the information reported by Ganduglia et al.35 For jatropha, it has been reported that the fruit shells are composed of 36.3, 63.07, and 56% of husks, seeds, and oil, respectively.36 The lignocellulosic material exhibits different complex biopolymers such as cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose, whose composition varied depending on the extraction process and plant nature. The composition of these residues after oil recovery from palm and jatropha is listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The elemental analysis of both biomasses was also collected from the open literature and summarized in Table 4.

Table 2. Composition of the Lignocellulosic Residual Biomass from African Palm.

component EFB (% wt)37 PPF (% wt)37
cellulose 38.8 32.7
hemicellulose 35.64 28.5
lignin 25.25 38.7
Open in a new tab

Table 3. Composition of the Lignocellulosic Residual Biomass from Jatropha.

component de-oiled cake (% wt)38 fruit (% wt)39
cellulose 53.5 56.31
hemicellulose 16.6 17.41
lignin 24.9 23.91
others 5 2.37
Open in a new tab

Table 4. Elemental Composition of Palm and J. curcas Residual Biomasses.

component palm bagasse (%) Jatropha bagasse (%)
C 45a 78.20b 45.76c 45.50d
H 6.4a 8.90b 6.30c 7.20d
N 0.25a 3.56b 0.42c 4d
O 47.3a 8.04b 47.44c 43.30d
S 1.06a 1.3b 0.07c  
Open in a new tab
a

Ref (40).

b

Ref (41).

c

Ref (42).

d

Ref (39).

2.1.1. Biodiesel Production from Oils through Alkaline Transesterification

The transesterification method was used to obtain the biodiesel by reacting alcohol (methanol) and fatty acids in the oil feedstock.43 In brief, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was used to catalyze this reaction and glycerol was obtained as a co-product, which are required to be separated from diesel. Then, liquid–liquid extraction was used to separate the products and send them to further purification stages. The biodiesel was purified using a flash separation stage in order to remove the remaining water and traces of methanol. The sodium hydroxide removal from the glycerol stream was carried out through neutralization with H3PO4, in which Na3PO4 was obtained and centrifuged. Afterward, methanol was recovered using a distillation column and was mixed with the methanol of makeup to reach the process requirements. The biodiesel production from palm and jatropha oil was simulated in UniSim Design software assuming a capacity of 100,000 t/y of oil. The composition of both oils used as the feedstock is reported by Sanford et al.44 and Berchmans and Hirata.45 As shown in Table 5, the unavailable properties in the simulator were determined by correlations found in the literature,46−50 which are based on fuel property measurements as stated by Samuel and Gulum.51

Table 5. Main Equations for Property Estimation.
property mathematical expression references
viscosity
graphic file with name ao9b03049_m007.jpg
 Krisnangkura et al.46
cloud point Pcloud = 0.526(%yC16:0) – 4.992 Sarin et al.47
POFF POFF = 0.5111(%yC16:0) – 7.823 Sarin et al.47
index of iodine II = 6.9512 + (−0.1825(%yC16:0)) + (1.01984(%yC18:0)) + (1.145(%yC18:1)) + (1.7248(%yC18:2)) Filho et al.48
Open in a new tab

The Peng–Robinson–Twu model was used as property package because of its accuracy for density predictions of hydrocarbons and polar components.52 However, other streams in biodiesel production were simulated using a non-random two liquid model. The operating conditions were collected from the information available in the literature and summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Operating Conditions for Biodiesel Production from Palm and Jatropha Oils.
  transesterification methanol recovery glycerol separation
palm oila catalyst NaOH reflux 2 stages 3
  reactor type CSTRc stages 18 water mass flow (kg/h) 1000
  temperature (°C) 60 distillate mass flow (kg/h) 1345 temperature (°C) 35
  pressure (kPa) 400c distillate composition 0.997 pressure (kPa) 120
  MeOH/oil ratio 06:01   neutralization (kmol/h) 0.92  
  residence time (h) 1        
  conversion (%) 99        
J. curcas oilb catalyst NaOH reflux 2.5/4.5 stages 3
  reactor type CSTRc stages 43,282 water mass flow (kg/h) 1000
  temperature (°C) 65 distillate mass flow (kg/h) 2425/2245 temperature (°C) 35
  pressure (kPa) 400c distillate composition 0.994/0.99 pressure (kPa) 120
  MeOH/oil ratio 5:1/6:1   neutralization (kmol/h) 0.92  
  residence time (h) 1.5/1.0        
  conversion (%) 99/99        
Open in a new tab
a

Ref (54).

b

Ref (55).

c

Ref (53).

2.1.1.1. Steam Reforming of Glycerol

In order to simulate the production of hydrogen via steam reforming, operating conditions and properties found in the literature were considered.56 A Gibbs reactor was used for the decomposition of glycerol into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. An adiabatic reactor was also required for performing water gas shift (WGS) reactions that convert CO into H2. The effect of temperature was evaluated to determine the most suitable condition for increasing the hydrogen production yield. The glycerol/water (G/W) molar ratio selected was 1:9 reducing the production of carbon monoxide as reported by Sad et al.57

2.1.1.2. Biomass Gasification

This process for hydrogen production was based on assumptions and operating conditions reported by many authors such as Bassyouni et al.58 and Gonzalez Laguado and Quintanilla Prada.59 The empty fruit bunches (EFBs) and palm pressing fiber (PPF) were considered as useable oil palm biomass, which were simulated separately with different chemical compositions. For jatropha, the residues were de-oiled cake (DOC) and fruit without seeds (F). The gasification and WGS reactions using steam as the gasifying agent were considered and steam/biomass (S/B) mass ratio = 2 was selected according to the work carried out by Khan et al.60 The thermodynamic package recommended for these processes is Peng–Robinson and the chemical composition of feedstocks was found in many works.39−42 The operating conditions for biomass gasification are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Operating Conditions for Biomass Gasification.
operating condition bagasse steam gasification reaction
temperature (°C) 25 400 1000
pressure (kPa) 2000 2000 2000
Open in a new tab
2.1.1.3. Hydrogen Purification

It is required to separate hydrogen from syngas components such as CO2, CO, and CH4, and hence, pressure swing adsorption (PSA) technology is used for hydrogen purification. The syngas is fed into an adsorption column under high pressure to obtain hydrogen with a purity of around 98–99.99% mol.61 The simulation of this stage considers real operating conditions of a typical industrial plant. The adsorption process occurs at room temperature (25 °C) and an inlet pressure of 40 atm. The adsorption column is represented as a black box allowing to separate the stream components in the mass percentage reported by Song et al.62

2.2. Environmental Analysis

To assess environmentally the proposed combined biomass biorefinery, the WAR was developed. This tool describes the PEIs considering different categories of impacts divided into atmospheric and toxicological.28 The PEI output provides information related to the external environmental efficiency, which refers to the capacity of a process for obtaining final products under a minimum discharge of potential. The total output rate of PEI is calculated by eq 1, where iout(cp), iout, iweep, and iwe represent the rate of PEI leaving the system due to chemical interactions, the rate of PEI out of the system due to energy generation processes, and PEI out of a system as a result of the release of waste energy due to energy generation and chemical processes, respectively.63

2.2. 1

The effect of blend composition was evaluated by varying the contents of jatropha and palm oils in order to analyze alternatives for reducing PEIs related to feedstock conditions.

2.3. Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis

The techno-economic feasibility analysis enables to compare both technical and economic efficiencies of many processes.64 The total capital investment (TCI) involves the funds needed to purchase and install the biodiesel manufacturing plant including equipment, facilities, and raw materials, among others. The TCI is described by eq 2, where FCI is the fixed capital investment, WCI is the working capital investment, and SUC is the start-up investment.

2.3. 2

The net cash flow (NCF) was calculated by eq 3, where AOC represents the annualized operating costs and ∑miCiv is the annual income.

2.3. 3

The economic profitability indicators selected to assess the combined biomass biorefinery are the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). The IRR is the interest rate at which the NPV is equal zero. The NPV is one of the most insightful profitability criteria that is calculated by eq 4, where ACFn is the net income for the nth year.

2.3. 4

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Process Simulation

3.1.1. Biodiesel Production via Transesterification of Jatropha and Palm Oils

This simulation is shown in Figure 2. As can be observed, palm oil and jatropha oil enter the mixer (MIX-102), while methanol and sodium hydroxide are mixed in MIX-101. The resulting mixtures are heated before entering the reactor (CRV-100), in which the transesterification reaction takes place. Then, the products of the reaction are sent to the liquid–liquid tower (T-100) that works with water in order to separate the biodiesel from the glycerol and unreacted methanol. The stream containing biodiesel is sent to the flash separator (V-101) to remove water and methanol from the product. The stream containing glycerol (105A) is sent to the reactor CRV-101, in which neutralization is performed by adding H3PO4. The product stream from neutralization is subjected to centrifugation (X-100) to remove Na3PO4. Then, the supernatant stream (108) is fed into a distillation tower T-102 in order to separate glycerol and methanol. The methanol stream (MeOHr) is sent back to the transesterification reactor. The required inlet streams for obtaining an oil blend of jatropha oil–palm oil in 30–70% wt (JP30-PO70) is listed in Table 8.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Simulation flow sheet for biodiesel production via alkaline transesterification.

Table 8. Feedstock Streams for Biodiesel Production.
oil blend (% wt) Jatropha oil (kg/h) Jatropha bagasse (kg/h) palm oil (kg/h) PPF (kg/h) EFB (kg/h) total bagasse (kg/h)
JP30-PO70 3300 6035 7700 9411 14,861 30,307
Open in a new tab

Table 9 lists the fuel properties of both biodiesels from palm oil and jatropha oil, which were provided by the process simulation and compared with the standard EN 14214. The biodiesels were in the desirable ranges based on this standard. The biodiesel from palm oil exhibited a higher cetane number than the biodiesel from jatropha oil which indicates shorter ignition delay periods in the diesel engine.51 The higher value for biodiesel from jatropha oil in the iodine index affects stability against oxidation and hydrolysis processes.47

Table 9. Fuel Properties from Simulation of Produced Biodiesel.
property biodiesel from palm oil biodiesel from jatropha oil JP30-PO70 EN 14214
ester content (% wt) 97.74 98.83 96.53 min 96.5
density@15 °C (kg/m3) 878.65 879.33 878.77 860–900
viscosity@40 °C (cSt) 4.34 4.23 4.21 3.5–5
cetane number 62.15 53.27 58.73 >51
iodine index 52.29 105.70 66.75 <120
Open in a new tab

3.1.2. Hydrogen Production through Steam Reforming of Glycerol

The simulation of steam reforming of glycerol to hydrogen is based on complex chemical reactions.65 The overall steam reforming reaction is the result of glycerol decomposition (reaction 5) and WGS (reaction 6).57

3.1.2. 5
3.1.2. 6

Figure 3 shows the hydrogen process simulation by the glycerol steam reforming technique, which consists of a steam reformer (GBR-100), a WGS reactor (ERV-101), water–gas separation vessel (V-102), and molecular sieves to separate hydrogen from syngas. The system is operated at the atmospheric temperature and steam to a carbon (S/C) ratio = 3. The reformed water is heated in E-110 to obtain reformed steam, which is fed into the reformer (GBR-100) along with glycerol (GlyceM1). The products of the reforming reaction are cooled (E-111) and sent to the WGS reactor (ERV-101) that operates in an equilibrium model. The resulting syngas is separated from water in the V-102, and hydrogen is collected in the molecular sieves. Table 10 summarizes the composition and operating conditions of main inlet and outlet streams involved in this process.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Simulation flow sheet for hydrogen production through glycerol steam reforming.

Table 10. Composition of Main Streams for Glycerol Steam Reforming.
  inlet streams
 outlet streams
properties reformed steam glycerol/water water H2 gas
temperature (°C) 200 200 100 100 126
pressure (kPa) 101.3 101.3 4053 3881 3881
molar flow (kmol/h) 55.02 69.16 71.88 84.3958 41.44
mass flow (kg/h) 991.35 2166.10 1298.23 170.40 1688.82
composition (wt)          
H2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9983 0.0006
CO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0009
CO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0045 0.0000 0.9532
CH4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0047
C2H6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
H2O 1.0000 0.4720 0.9955 0.0016 0.0406
glycerol 0.0000 0.5280 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Open in a new tab

The effect of reaction temperature on the reforming process was studied in order to maximize the production of hydrogen. Martin et al.66 reported that higher temperatures significantly reduce the formation of coke during steam reforming. Figure 4 shows the influence of temperature on hydrogen production yield under specific operating conditions previously described. It was found that the highest hydrogen/glycerol mass ratio was achieved at 650 °C.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Effect of temperature on hydrogen production through steam reforming.

The Gibbs free energy minimization method was used to predict the production yield of H2, CO, CO2, and CH4 and compared with the results reported by Soto.56 It has been pointed out that this thermodynamic study concluded that hydrogen production is favored by high temperature, low pressure, and high water/glycerol ratio.57 In fact, Wang et al.67 concluded that temperatures above 750 °C and S/C between 2 and 3 are suitable for hydrogen production. Table 11 summarizes the gas production through steam reforming of glycerol.

Table 11. Production Yield of Gases Using Steam Reforming Technique.
production yield (gas/glycerol, mass ratio) H2 CO2 CO CH4
simulation 0.130 1.001 0.263 0.0069
experimental56 0.149 1.334 0.162 0.000
Open in a new tab

3.1.3. Hydrogen Production through Biomass Gasification

The oil extraction process generates several wastes and some of them are not being used for obtaining high-value products. The bagasse, EFB, PPF, DOC, and fruits without seed residual biomasses were sent for gasification in order to obtain the syngas required to produce hydrogen. Table 12 presents the syngas composition for a blended jatropha oil–palm oil (JO30-PO70). Nipattummakul et al.68 reported similar values for the molar composition of syngas as follows: H2 (0.52% mol), CO (0.30% mol), CO2 (0.14% mol), and CH4 (0.001% mol). Li et al.69 also obtained an approximated volumetric composition: 53.6, 20.5, 20.9, and 4.4% vol for H2, CO, CO2, and CH4, respectively. The simulation results fitted the compositions obtained experimentally by other authors suggesting a good prediction for the real process.

Table 12. Syngas Composition Produced through Biomass Gasification.
components composition (% mol) composition (% vol)
H2 0.596 49.82
CO 0.228 23.09
CO2 0.174 26.92
CH4 0.001 0.16
Open in a new tab

The route for biomass gasification to hydrogen is shown in Figure 5. As can be observed, the biomasses are mixed and sent to a gasifier (GBR-100-2), in which gasification reactions took place. The biomass thermal gasification produces a gas called syngas or synthesis gas that is mainly CO and H2 along with a minor amount of CO2 and CH4.70 Then, the CO content is converted into hydrogen and carbon dioxide via WGS in adiabatic reactors at thermodynamical equilibrium (ERV-100, ERV-101-2, ERV-102) and the resulting gas is feed into a separation vessel (V-100) to remove condensates from the syngas stream. Afterward, this stream is compressed and sent to a PSA unit (X-100-2). Table 13 presents the composition of the main inlet and outlet streams involved in hydrogen production through biomass gasification.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Simulation flow sheet for hydrogen production via biomass gasification.

Table 13. Composition of Main Streams for Biomass Gasification.
  inlet streams
 outlet streams
properties EFB PPF Jatropha bagasse H2O bagasse condensates liquid wastes hydrogen gasses
temperature (°C) 20 20 20 25 25 150 25 46.04
pressure (kPa) 2000 2000 2000 2000 4053 2000 3881 3881
molar flow (kmol/h) 1252.43 793.14 509.26 2169.16 1185.91 786.53 2315.76 1157.55
mass flow (kg/h) 14,860.7 9411.11 6034.56 39,077.65 21,535.23 14,181.30 4668.87 50,099.31
composition (wt)                
 H2 0.064 0.089 0.063 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 1.000 0.001
 O2 0.469 0.080 0.475 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.000
 C 0.449 0.782 0.458 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.000
 N2 0.002 0.035 0.004 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.002
 H2O 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.9865 0.9983 0.000 0.001
 CO 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.002
 CO2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0135 0.0017 0.000 0.994
 CH4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.001
 S 0.016 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.000
Open in a new tab

3.2. Global Energy Balance of the Biorefinery

The global energy balance around the combined palm and jatropha biomass biorefinery was performed in order to calculate the net energy gain of the system. As shown in Figure 6, caloric content of biomasses and oils were considered for the calculation of energy inputs. The utilities were estimated with the process simulation at 2987.99 kW. The energy output included biodiesel (JP30-PO70) and hydrogen from both reforming and gasification. The higher heating value (HHV) of oil palm biomasses as well as jatropha bagasse were found in the literature.71,72 The HHV of jatropha and palm oils were simulated properties provided by software. The net energy ratio (NER) was calculated as the ratio between the net energy output and net energy input. A value of NER > 1 indicates that the fuel system has a net energy gain, that is, the energy given for the production of biodiesel and hydrogen is higher than the energy obtained in the use of biodiesel and hydrogen.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Energy balance of the biorefinery.

3.3. Environmental Analysis

The PEIs of the processes involved in combined biomass biorefinery were determined by the WAR algorithm. The PEI categories considered in this work were based on the results reported by Young and Cabezas73 as follows: human toxicity potential by ingestion, human toxicity potential by exposure, aquatic toxicity potential (ATP), terrestrial toxicity potential, global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential, smog formation potential, and acidification potential (AP). Figure 7 shows the PEI for three different blends (JO10-PO90, JO20-PO80, and JO30-PO70), palm oil, and J. curcas oil. As can be observed, the AP most contributes to environmental impacts, followed by ATP and GWP categories. These results can be attributed to the consumption of fossil fuels in order to supply the heating energy requirements for steam reforming and biomass gasification of residual lignocellulosic materials. Palm oil exhibited the highest value for AP and ATP categories, which could be assigned to the sulfur content in palm bagasse (0.029 wt) producing acids over the process. The JO30-PO70 blend generated lower PEIs (1100 PEI/h) than other blends. Hence, it was expected that the blend with a lower palm oil amount showed lower environmental impacts.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

PEI for combined biomass biorefinery.

3.4. Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis

The equipment costs were calculated according to the characteristic dimensions provided by simulation software. However, the hydrogen purification stage was dimensioned according to the recommendations found in the literature related to the use of three packed-bed adsorption columns.62 The cost estimation was performed through several plots reported by Peters and Timmerhaus,74 which were updated with the CEPSI index. Table 14 summarizes the total cost of equipment used for operating the biorefinery.

Table 14. Equipment Cost Estimation.

equipment cost (USD)
heat exchangers $444,663.51
compressors $507,512.18
pumps $40,715.72
reactors $456,152.37
drums $204,391.05
columns $523,859.21
total $2,177,294.03
Open in a new tab

As is listed in Table 15, the raw material costs considered the inflation per year in Colombia and involved the cultivation and oil extraction costs. The selling price for different products obtained in this biorefinery were collected from Han et al.75 and are summarized in Table 16.

Table 15. Raw Material Costs.

raw material cost (USD/kg)
NaOH 0.337
methanol 0.466
H3PO4 0.68
oil-bagasse 0.604
Open in a new tab

Table 16. Selling Price of Products.

product selling price (USD/kg) product selling price (USD/m3)
biodiesel 0.89 H2 2.7
Na3PO4 0.75 CO2 0.3
Open in a new tab

The fixed capital investment and working capital were calculated assuming product sale for one month. The TCI refers to funds invested to begin a product manufacture for at least one month. The proposed combined biomass biorefinery reported a FCI of 12,715,397.16 $USD, WC of 2,050,423.75 $USD, and TCI of 14,765,820.91 $USD. The total operating cost estimation was performed based on annualized raw material costs, utility costs, administrative expenses, and labor, among others. This information was useful to calculate the cash flow of over a year, which is defined as the difference between incomes and expenses. The total operating cost, sales revenue, and NCF were calculated to be 82,760,321.68 $USD, 87,726,871.58 $USD, and 4,966,549.90 $USD, respectively. The techno-economic feasibility of combined biomass biorefinery was analyzed by economic indicators (NPV and IRR) for a useful life of 15 years and annual interest rate of 20%. The economic indicators were calculated to be 8,455,147.29 $USD and 33.18% for NPV and IRR, respectively. These results revealed that the proposed combined biomass biorefinery is feasible to be implemented. In addition, similar values for IRR were obtained in other works using lignocellulosic materials.76,77

4. Conclusions

This work was focused on applying the biorefinery concept to the biodiesel production from J. curcas and palm oils with the aim of taking advantage of biodiesel industry-derived residues to generate high-value products such as hydrogen. The process simulation of linear chains provided information concerning process streams (temperature, pressure, mass flow, and composition), which were required for performing environmental and techno-economic analyses. The residual biomass conversion into hydrogen was carried out through gasification, which is one of the most used thermochemical technology. The glycerol produced as a co-product in the transesterification reaction was used in steam reforming for hydrogen production. The incorporation of these linear chains into the biodiesel production process was expected to be an alternative for making it more economically competitive. The environmental analysis results revealed that AP most contributes to environmental impacts, followed by ATP and GWP categories. The AP category also shown to be significantly high for a single biomass biorefinery reported in previous works such as oil palm-based biorefinery,28 which suggests similar environmental performance of the combined biomass design in this impact category. The blend JO30-PO70 exhibited the lowest PEIs; hence, it was selected for further studies. The NPV and IRR indicators were calculated to be 8,455,147.29 $USD and 33.18%, respectively, suggesting the feasibility of the proposed combined biomass biorefinery. The combination of both jatropha and palm oils for biodiesel production was shown to be an attractive tecno-economic alternative, supporting the study performed by Sarin et al.49 The main drawback of this biorefinery design was the high energetic demand for transforming both biomasses into valuable products. Hence, the application of process integration techniques to the simulated biorefinery is recommended in order to reduce the consumption of energy during preheating for the transesterification reaction and biomass gasification. Besides, the process safety evaluation of this design features a key aspect to be considered in future studies to assess the viability of the biorefinery in terms of fire and explosion hazards.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the University of Cartagena for providing the equipment and software required to successfully conclude this work.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Giwa A.; Adeyemi I.; Dindi A.; Lopez C. G.-B.; Lopresto C. G.; Curcio S.; Chakraborty S. Techno-Economic Assessment of the Sustainability of an Integrated Biorefinery from Microalgae and Jatropha: A Review and Case Study. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 239–257. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Yang R.; Du X.; Zhang X.; Xin H.; Zhou K.; Li D.; Hu C. Transformation of Jatropha Oil into High-Quality Biofuel over Ni–W Bimetallic Catalysts. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 10580. 10.1021/acsomega.9b00375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Indrawan N.; Thapa S.; Rahman S. F.; Park J.-H.; Park S.-H.; Wijaya M. E.; Gobikrishnan S.; Purwanto W. W.; Park D.-H. Palm Biodiesel Prospect in the Indonesian Power Sector. Environ. Technol. Innovat. 2017, 7, 110–127. 10.1016/j.eti.2017.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ohashi Y.; Watanabe T. Catalytic Performance of Food Additives Alum, Flocculating Agent, Al(SO4)3 , AlCl 3 , and Other Lewis Acids in Microwave Solvolysis of Hardwoods and Recalcitrant Softwood for Biorefinery. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 16271. 10.1021/acsomega.8b01454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bi Z.; Lai B.; Zhao Y.; Yan L. Fast Disassembly of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Lignin and Sugars by Molten Salt Hydrate at Low Temperature for Overall Biorefinery. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 2984. 10.1021/acsomega.8b00057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hassan S. S.; Williams G. A.; Jaiswal A. K. Lignocellulosic Biorefineries in Europe: Current State and Prospects. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 231. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; , in press
  7. Mosarof M. H.; Kalam M. A.; Masjuki H. H.; Ashraful A. M.; Rashed M. M.; Imdadul H. K.; Monirul I. M. Implementation of Palm Biodiesel Based on Economic Aspects, Performance, Emission, and Wear Characteristics. Energy Convers. Manage. 2015, 105, 617–629. 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Park S. H.; Khan N.; Lee S.; Zimmermann K.; Derosa M.; Hamilton L.; Hudson W.; Hyder S.; Serratos M.; Sheffield E.; et al. Biodiesel Production from Locally Sourced Restaurant Waste Cooking Oil and Grease: Synthesis, Characterization, and Performance Evaluation. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 7775. 10.1021/acsomega.9b00268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Li L.; Dyer P. W.; Greenwell H. C. Biodiesel Production via Trans-Esterification Using Pseudomonas Cepacia Immobilized on Cellulosic Polyurethane. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 6804. 10.1021/acsomega.8b00110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Masani M. Y. A.; Izawati A. M. D.; Rasid O. A.; Parveez G. K. A. Biotechnology of Oil Palm: Current Status of Oil Palm Genetic Transformation. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 15, 335–347. 10.1016/j.bcab.2018.07.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Khatun R.; Reza M. I. H.; Moniruzzaman M.; Yaakob Z. Sustainable Oil Palm Industry : The Possibilities. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 608–619. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.077. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kamel D. A.; Farag H. A.; Amin N. K.; Zatout A. A.; Ali R. M. Smart Utilization of Jatropha (Jatropha Curcas Linnaeus) Seeds for Biodiesel Production: Optimization and Mechanism. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 111, 407–413. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.10.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gupta A.; Kumar A.; Agarwal A.; Osawa M.; Verma A. Acute Accidental Mass Poisoning by Jatropha Curcas in Agra, North India. Egypt. J. Forensic Sci. 2016, 6, 496–500. 10.1016/j.ejfs.2016.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rashid U.; Anwar F.; Jamil A.; Bhatti H. Jatropha Curcas Seed Oil as a Viable Source for Biodiesel. Pak. J. Bot. 2010, 42, 575–582. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lin J.-J.; Chen Y.-W. Production of Biodiesel by Transesterification of Jatropha Oil with Microwave Heating. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2017, 75, 43–50. 10.1016/j.jtice.2017.03.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mofijur M.; Masjuki H. H.; Kalam M. A.; Hazrat M. A.; Liaquat A. M.; Shahabuddin M.; Varman M. Prospects of Biodiesel from Jatropha in Malaysia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 5007–5020. 10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Granjo J. F. O.; Duarte B. P. M.; Oliveira N. M. C. Integrated Production of Biodiesel in a Soybean Biorefinery: Modeling, Simulation and Economical Assessment. Energy 2017, 129, 273–291. 10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.167. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Moncada J. B.; Aristizábal V. M.; Cardona C. A. Design Strategies for Sustainable Biorefineries. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 116, 122–134. 10.1016/j.bej.2016.06.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Almeida J. R. M.; Fávaro L. C. L.; Quirino B. F. Biodiesel Biorefinery: Opportunities and Challenges for Microbial Production of Fuels and Chemicals from Glycerol Waste. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2012, 5, 48. 10.1186/1754-6834-5-48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Shayan E.; Zare V.; Mirzaee I. Hydrogen Production from Biomass Gasification; a Theoretical Comparison of Using Different Gasification Agents. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018, 159, 30–41. 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Menezes J. P. d. S. Q.; Manfro R. L.; Souza M. M. V. M. Hydrogen Production from Glycerol Steam Reforming over Nickel Catalysts Supported on Alumina and Niobia: Deactivation Process, Effect of Reaction Conditions and Kinetic Modeling. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 15064. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Demirbas M. F. Biorefineries for Biofuel Upgrading: A Critical Review. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, S151–S161. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sakdasri W.; Sawangkeaw R.; Ngamprasertsith S. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biodiesel Production from Palm Oil with Supercritical Methanol at a Low Molar Ratio. Energy 2018, 152, 144–153. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moreno-Sader K.; Alarcón-Suesca C.; González-Delgado A. D. Application of Environmental and Hazard Assessment Methodologies towards the Sustainable Production of Crude Palm Oil in North-Colombia. Sustainable Chem. Pharm. 2020, 15, 100221. 10.1016/j.scp.2020.100221. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Romero-Perez J. C.; Vergara-Echeverry L. A.; Peralta-Ruiz Y. Y.; González-Delgado A. D. A Techno-Economic Sensitivity Approach for Development of a Palm-Based Biorefineries in Colombia. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 57, 13–18. 10.3303/CET1757003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Meramo-Hurtado S. I.; Ojeda K. A.; Sanchez-Tuiran E. Environmental and Safety Assessments of Industrial Production of Levulinic Acid via Acid-Catalyzed Dehydration. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 22302–22312. 10.1021/acsomega.9b02231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Navarro-Pineda F. S.; Handler R.; Sacramento Rivero J. C. Conceptual Design of a Dedicated-Crop Biorefinery for Jatropha Curcas Using a Systematic Sustainability Evaluation. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 2019, 13, 86–106. 10.1002/bbb.1940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Herrera-Aristizábal R.; Salgado-Dueñas J. S.; Peralta-Ruíz Y.; Gonzalez-Delgado A. Environmental Evaluation of a Palm-Based Biorefinery under North-Colombian Conditions. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 57, 193–198. 10.3303/CET1757033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Batlle E. A. O.; Santiago Y. C.; Venturini O. J.; Palacio J. C. E.; Lora E. E. S.; Maya D. M. Y.; Arrieta A. R. A. Thermodynamic and Environmental Assessment of Different Scenarios for the Insertion of Pyrolysis Technology in Palm Oil Biorefineries. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020, 250, 119544. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]; , in press
  30. Navarro-Pineda F. S.; Baz-Rodríguez S. A.; Handler R.; Sacramento-Rivero J. C. Advances on the Processing of Jatropha Curcas towards a Whole-Crop Biorefinery. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 247–269. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Martinez-Hernandez E.; Martinez-Herrera J.; Campbell G. M.; Sadhukhan J. Process Integration, Energy and GHG Emission Analyses of Jatropha-Based Biorefinery Systems. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2014, 4, 105–124. 10.1007/s13399-013-0105-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Vivas M. C.; Collado E. A. Jatropha Oil Plant for Biodiesel Production with a Biorefinery Processing Perspective. TechConnect Briefs 2018, 2, 131–133. [Google Scholar]
  33. Martinez-Hernandez E.; Campbell G. M.; Sadhukhan J. Economic and Environmental Impact Marginal Analysis of Biorefinery Products for Policy Targets. J. Cleaner Prod. 2014, 74, 74–85. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Garcia-Nuñez J.; Garcia-Perez M.; Rodriguez D.; Ramirez N.; Fontanilla C.. Evolution of Palm Oil Mills into Biorefineries: Technical, and Environemntal Assessment of Six Biorefinery Options. Engineering Conferences International, 2015; pp 1–49.
  35. Ganduglia F.; Leon G.; Gasparini R.; Huarte G.. Manual De Biocombustible, 2009; Vol. 1.
  36. Sirisomboon P.; Kitchaiya P.; Pholpho T.; Mahuttanyavanitch W. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Jatropha Curcas L. Fruits, Nuts and Kernels. Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 97, 201–207. 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.02.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Palamae S.; Palachum W.; Chisti Y.; Choorit W. Retention of Hemicellulose during Delignification of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB) Fiber with Peracetic Acid and Alkaline Peroxide. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 240–248. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sharma R.; Sheth P. N.; Gujrathi A. M. Kinetic Modeling and Simulation: Pyrolysis of Jatropha Residue de-Oiled Cake. Renewable Energy 2016, 86, 554–562. 10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sricharoenchaikul V.; Atong D. Thermal Decomposition Study on Jatropha Curcas L. Waste Using TGA and Fixed Bed Reactor. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2009, 85, 155–162. 10.1016/j.jaap.2008.11.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Omar R.; Idris A.; Yunus R.; Khalid K.; Isma M. I. A. Characterization of Empty Fruit Bunch for Microwave-Assisted Pyrolysis. Fuel 2011, 90, 1536–1544. 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Dewayanto N.; Isha R.; Nordin M. R. Use of Palm Oil Decanter Cake as a New Substrate for the Production of Bio-Oil by Vacuum Pyrolysis. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014, 86, 226–232. 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.04.078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Biswas B.; Mohanty P.; Sharma D. K. Studies on Co-Cracking of Jatropha Oil with Bagasse to Obtain Liquid, Gaseous Product and Char. Renewable Energy 2014, 63, 308–316. 10.1016/j.renene.2013.09.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Metawea R.; Zewail T.; El-Ashtoukhy E.-S.; El Gheriany I.; Hamad H. Process Intensification of the Transesterification of Palm Oil to Biodiesel in a Batch Agitated Vessel Provided with Mesh Screen Extended Baffles. Energy 2018, 158, 111–120. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanford S.; White J.; Parag S.; Valverde M.. Feedstock and Biodiesel Characteristics Report, 2009.
  45. Berchmans H. J.; Hirata S. Biodiesel Production from Crude Jatropha Curcas L. Seed Oil with a High Content of Free Fatty Acids. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1716–1721. 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Krisnangkura K.; Yimsuwan T.; Pairintra R. An Empirical Approach in Predicting Biodiesel Viscosity at Various Temperatures. Fuel 2006, 85, 107–113. 10.1016/j.fuel.2005.05.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sarin A.; Arora R.; Singh N. P.; Sarin R.; Malhotra R. K.; Kundu K. Effect of Blends of Palm-Jatropha-Pongamia Biodiesels on Cloud Point and Pour Point. Energy 2009, 34, 2016–2021. 10.1016/j.energy.2009.08.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Filho A. O. B.; Barros A. K. D.; Labidi S.; Viegas I. M. A.; Marques D. B.; Romariz A. R. S.; de Sousa R. M.; Marques A. L. B.; Marques E. P. Application of Artificial Neural Networks to Predict Viscosity, Iodine Value and Induction Period of Biodiesel Focused on the Study of Oxidative Stability. Fuel 2015, 145, 127–135. 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sarin R.; Sharma M.; Sinharay S.; Malhotra R. K. Jatropha–Palm Biodiesel Blends: An Optimum Mix for Asia. Fuel 2007, 86, 1365–1371. 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.11.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Gülüm M.; Onay F. K.; Bilgin A. Comparison of Viscosity Prediction Capabilities of Regression Models and Artificial Neural Networks. Energy 2018, 161, 361–369. 10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.130. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Samuel O. D.; Gulum M. Mechanical and Corrosion Properties of Brass Exposed to Waste Sunflower Oil Biodiesel-Diesel Fuel Blends. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2019, 206, 682–694. 10.1080/00986445.2018.1519508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Twu C. H.; Sim W. D.; Tassone V. Getting a Handle on Advanced Cubic Equations of State. Chem. Eng. Prog 2002, 98, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
  53. West A.; Posarac D.; Ellis N. Assessment of Four Biodiesel Production Processes Using HYSYS.Plant. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6587–6601. 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Acevedo J. C.; Hernández J. A.; Valdés C. F.; Khanal S. K. Analysis of Operating Costs for Producing Biodiesel from Palm Oil at Pilot-Scale in Colombia. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 188, 117–123. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Huerga I.Producción de Biodiesel a Partir de Cultivos Alternativos: Experiencia Con Jatropha Curcas. M. Tech. Thesis, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  56. Soto L.Reformado de Glicerina Con Vapor de Agua: Simulacion y Estudio Experimental. Thesis, Universidad de Zaragoza, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sad M. E.; Duarte H. A.; Vignatti C.; Padró C. L.; Apesteguía C. R. Steam Reforming of Glycerol: Hydrogen Production Optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 6097–6106. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.03.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Bassyouni M.; ul Hasan S. W.; Abdel-Aziz M. H.; Abdel-hamid S. M.-S.; Naveed S.; Hussain A.; Ani F. N. Date Palm Waste Gasification in Downdraft Gasifier and Simulation Using ASPEN HYSYS. Energy Convers. Manage. 2014, 88, 693–699. 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Gonzalez Laguado N.; Quintanilla Prada V. A.. Simulación de Un Sistema Gasificador de Bagazo de Caña de Azúcar Conectado a Un Reactor de WGS Para La Producción de Hidrogeno. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Industrial de Santander, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  60. Khan Z.; Yusup S.; Ahmad M. M.; Rashidi N. A. Integrated Catalytic Adsorption (ICA) Steam Gasification System for Enhanced Hydrogen Production Using Palm Kernel Shell. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 3286–3293. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.12.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Voldsund M.; Jordal K.; Anantharaman R. Hydrogen Production with CO2 Capture. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 4969–4992. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Song C.; Liu Q.; Ji N.; Kansha Y.; Tsutsumi A. Optimization of Steam Methane Reforming Coupled with Pressure Swing Adsorption Hydrogen Production Process by Heat Integration. Appl. Energy 2015, 154, 392–401. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Okoro O.; Sun Z.; Birch J. Catalyst-Free Biodiesel Production Methods: A Comparative Technical and Environmental Evaluation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 127. 10.3390/su10010127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Gebremariam S. N.; Marchetti J. M. Techno-Economic Feasibility of Producing Biodiesel from Acidic Oil Using Sulfuric Acid and Calcium Oxide as Catalysts. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018, 171, 1712–1720. 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tamošiu̅nas A.; Valatkevičius P.; Gimžauskaitė D.; Valinčius V.; Jeguirim M. Glycerol Steam Reforming for Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 12896–12904. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Martin S.; Albrecht F.; Veer P.; Lieftink D.; Dietrich R. Evaluation of On-Site Hydrogen Generation via Steam Reforming of Biodiesel: Process Optimization and Heat Integration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 6640–6652. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.02.138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang X.; Li M.; Wang M.; Wang H.; Li S.; Wang S.; Ma X. Thermodynamic Analysis of Glycerol Dry Reforming for Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas Production. Fuel 2009, 88, 2148–2153. 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.01.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nipattummakul N.; Ahmed I. I.; Gupta A. K.; Kerdsuwan S. Hydrogen and Syngas Yield from Residual Branches of Oil Palm Tree Using Steam Gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 3835–3843. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Li J.; Yin Y.; Zhang X.; Liu J.; Yan R. Hydrogen-Rich Gas Production by Steam Gasification of Palm Oil Wastes over Supported Trimetallic Catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 9108–9115. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Salam M. A.; Ahmed K.; Akter N.; Hossain T.; Abdullah B. A Review of Hydrogen Production via Biomass Gasification and Its Prospect in Bangladesh. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 14944. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Paul O. U.; John I. H.; Peter A.; Ndubuisi I.; Godspower O. Calorific Value of Palm Oil Residues for Energy Utilisation. Int. J. Eng. Res. Innovat. 2015, 4, 664–667. [Google Scholar]
  72. Hsu T.-C.; Chang C.-C.; Yuan M.-H.; Chang C.-Y.; Chen Y.-H.; Lin C.-F.; Ji D.-R.; Shie J.-L.; Manh D. V.; Wu C.-H.; Chiang S.-W.; Lin F.-C.; Lee D.-J.; Huang M.; Chen Y.-H. Upgrading of Jatropha-Seed Residue after Mechanical Extraction of Oil via Torrefaction. Energy 2018, 142, 773–781. 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Young D. M.; Cabezas H. Designing Sustainable Processes with Simulation: The Waste Reduction (WAR) Algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1999, 23, 1477–1491. 10.1016/S0098-1354(99)00306-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Peters M. S.; Timmerhaus K. D.. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers; McGraw-Hill, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  75. Han W.; Fang J.; Liu Z.; Tang J. Techno-Economic Evaluation of a Combined Bioprocess for Fermentative Hydrogen Production from Food Waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 202, 107–112. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Budzinski M.; Nitzsche R. Comparative Economic and Environmental Assessment of Four-Beech Wood Based Biorefinery Concepts. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 216, 613–621. 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Luo L.; Van der Voet E.; Huppes G. Biorefining of Lignocellulosic Feedstock – Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5023–5032. 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES