Energy 290 (2024) 130104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Techno-economic assessment of a novel integrated multigeneration system

to synthesize e-methanol and green hydrogen in a carbon-neutral context
Usman Safder a, b, **, Jorge Loy-Benitez c, ChangKyoo Yoo a, *
a
Integrated Engineering, Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea
b
School of Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland
c
Department of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel and efficient multigeneration system aiming to achieve near-zero CO2 emissions is proposed. The system
Carbon capture employs a methanol production process utilizing captured CO2 from the flue gas of a biomass-gasification plant.
Cleaner energy The proposed system successfully generates green H2 through water electrolysis, supported by thermal power,
e-methanol
with a portion of the hydrogen reacting with CO2 to produce e-methanol. Additionally, the system produces other
Green hydrogen
Sustainability
valuable products, including power, cooling, O2, and CO2, in a coherent manner, benefiting from a low-emission
framework and exhibiting high thermodynamic performance. The proposed multigeneration system consists of a
biomass-gasification-based power plant, a water electrolyzer, a methanol generation unit, a carbon capture unit,
and a steam jet ejector-based refrigeration cycle. The integrated multigeneration system is analyzed from the
energy, exergy, and economic aspects. The results demonstrate the system’s ability to achieve production rates of
430.25 kg/h of e-methanol and 190 kg/h of green H2. Furthermore, the energy and exergy efficiencies of the
system are found to be 78.13% and 71.63%, respectively. The CO2 emissions analysis reveals that the proposed
system significantly reduced total CO2 emission to 78.5% (0.61 kgCO2/kg). The total cost of production is esti­
mated to be 0.087 $/kg.

1. Introduction agreement [3]. For these reasons, renewable energy (RE) has gained
great attention as a viable alternative; nevertheless, RE is unpredictable
The increase in population and social and industrial modernization and poses challenges for immediate integration into the power system
have introduced requirements for greater demand for several social due to intermittencies in solar radiation and wind speed [4]. However,
services, energy satisfaction being one of the most prominent, leading to biomass, as an RE source, is considered more stable, characterizing
changes in various parts of the world over the past few decades [1]. In bioenergy systems as a great candidate due to their potential for carbon
2018, coal was responsible for generating 38% of the world’s energy. neutrality and applicability [5].
However, in 2019, there was a decrease of 3.1% in coal-fired energy Due to heavy industrialization and carbon-based products, a large
output globally, while low-carbon electricity generation contributed quantity of CO2 has been heavily released, representing an increase of
37% of the world’s electricity. Conversely, emerging countries experi­ 5.4% over the past few years [6]. Then, different technologies have been
enced the slowest growth in coal-fired energy production in 50 years introduced for the reduction of CO2 generation, including its seques­
[2]. The extraction of fossil fuels for energy production has had negative tration and storage. For instance, the oil and gas industry explores the
impacts on the biosphere and lithosphere, considering that over 80% of viability of improving shale gas recovery to sequester CO2 in exhausted
the world’s energy supply is derived from them. reservoirs; moreover, various investigations have been devoted to
Considering coal-based energy has had detrimental consequences for finding adequate spaces for the storage of CO2, including deep saline
climate change, guided by constant greenhouse gases (GHG), there is an aquifers and different geological formations [7,8]. However, these
urgent necessity to limit the increase in global temperature by reducing strategies do not represent a complete solution, and in consequence,
GHG emissions by 40%–70% by 2050, according to the Copenhagen research has been shifted to the CO2 conversion to useful products such

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (U. Safder), [email protected] (C. Yoo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.130104
Received 10 July 2023; Received in revised form 19 October 2023; Accepted 21 December 2023
Available online 22 December 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

as methanol, dimethyl carbonate, formic acid, formaldehyde, and production technologies, facilitating the transition towards more
co-polymers, resulting in both ecologically and commercially advanta­ energy-efficient and environmentally friendly processes.
geous results [9]. The present study proposes a novel integration of an integrated
Methanol is one of the products derived from CO2, mainly utilized in multigeneration system using flue gas to generate electricity, cooling,
the petrochemical industry as a fuel, solvent, and precursor substance green H2, e-methanol (electrolytic methanol), and O2. The focus is on
for production. The CO2 hydrogenation for methanol generation, in developing a sustainable production strategy with greater thermody­
comparison to conventional methods, has been greatly investigated as it namic efficiency, lower costs, and reduced CO2 emissions. To achieve
produces less byproducts with less purification energy [6]. As this this, mass integration is utilized to collect the methanol from the vapors
method can be two times more costly than conventional methods, the above the flash separator, which reduces the cost of methanol produc­
advantage relies on the generation of H2 given by water electrolysis in tion and improves thermodynamic efficiency. The overall process is
the context of green energy generation [10]. Flue gases from power composed of five subsystems: CCU, water electrolyzer unit (WEU),
plants and other industries are great sources of CO2 for further pro­ power generating unit (PGU), cooling production unit (CPU), and
cessing. Due to the advantages of methanol production utilizing flue methanol production unit (MPU). The procedure is analyzed from a 3E
gases while generating multiple products, the present research in­ perspective (exergy, energy, and economics), and a CO2 emission anal­
vestigates a novel method of utilizing and converting flue gases based on ysis is also conducted to reach the potential of the proposed system.
the carbon capture and utilization (CCU) concept. It plays a positive role
in enabling near-zero CO2 emissions in industries, and the utilization of 2. Materials and methods
CO2 as a valuable product shows tremendous outcomes for reducing
global warming potential. 2.1. System configuration
In the development of power systems, mathematical models are, in
general, developed in steady-state, modal, and transient conditions, This work investigates a large-scale system for producing e-methanol
depending on the operational condition and design objectives [11]. The from H2 and captured CO2. Notably, green hydrogen is produced by
multigeneration system (MGS) has a high energy efficiency, usually over water electrolysis employing bagasse biomass as a renewable energy
50%. However, its exergy efficiency can range from 24% to 60%. This source, while carbon dioxide is extracted from flue gas produced by a
means that the MGS could improve its energetic behavior by recovering biomass gasifier utilizing an amine-based CO2 capture method. Fig. 1 is a
enough energy and materials, but in complex configurations, it would schematic representation of the studied power-to-methanol system and
lose a lot of exergy [12]. Therefore, more efficient performance can be its division into five main sections: (i) a power generation unit utilizing
achieved if the overall design principles are expressed in terms of energy bagasse-biomass; (ii) water splitting into H2 and O2 via a water elec­
quality (exergy) rather than quantity [13]. In a study conducted by trolysis unit; (iii) carbon capture with amine-based solvents; (iv) the
Wiesberg et al. [14], the feasibility of a methanol production process synthesis and purification of e-methanol via direct CO2 hydrogenation;
was evaluated from an exergy perspective, considering the integration of and (v) a steam jet-ejector (SJE)-based cooling production unit.
bi-reforming or hydrogenation with a CO2 capture process. The exergy Previous investigations have suggested that capturing CO2 is the
efficiency of the bi-reforming process was determined to be 66.3%, primary method for upgrading existing systems to mitigate environ­
while the hydrogenation process achieved an exergy efficiency of mental risks. The aim of the current research is to modify a power plant
55.8%. Deng and Adams [15] investigated the thermodynamic, eco­ by incorporating a CO2 capture and utilization unit, which is a promising
nomic, and environmental benefits of capturing CO2 from coke oven gas approach to reducing CO2 emissions. In this research, methanol is
and blast furnace gas for methanol production. Their evaluation completely recovered using a washing tower and separated with a
revealed that the process had the potential to mitigate up to 228 tons of distillation tower, contrary to previous studies where it was typically
CO2 emissions annually, with an exergy efficiency of 61%. These find­ burned to produce more energy when there were no other viable uses
ings can inform the development and improvement of future methanol [16].

Fig. 1. Proposed schematic configuration of the integrated multigeneration system.

2
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

Bagasse was introduced into the gasifier in the topping cycle at room the gasifier, leading to an increase in the overall carbon dioxide foot­
temperature and a pressure of 298.3K and 1 bar, respectively. The flue print due to the release of flue gases into the atmosphere. To mitigate
gas was purified by passing through purification units. The clean flue gas this impact, our objective is to redirect these gases to a post-combustion
flowed into the combustion chamber, where it was burned with air at the chemical absorption process that can absorb up to 90 % of carbon di­
proper air-fuel ratio. The power was generated by expanding the high- oxide emissions. It is believed that chemical absorption using amine-
temperature, high-pressure combustion products in the BG-turb (state based solvents is how CO2 capture occurs. A carbon capture unit
8). High-temperature flue gases from the gas turbine (BG-turb) (state 9) (CCU) has been sent a stream of flue gas generated by a bagasse-biomass
passed through the HEX-1 and provided some heat as the second product gasifier (stream 9). As in the normal CO2 collection section based on
of the system. The SJE outflow is condensed in HEX-3 by preheating flue chemical absorption, a 90% CO2 capture efficiency has been established.
gas and divided into two streams. The first stream is pumped in P-1, and Considering a 90% removal efficiency from a capture system using a
the second stream provides cooling in HEX-3 after its pressure decreases 30% monoethanolamine (MEA) solution [18], the energy required for
in a throttling valve (valve). amine regeneration—generally between 3 and 5 MJ per kilogram of CO2
The heated water from CCU (stream 33) is sent to the electrolyzer to adsorbed [19]—is estimated to be 3.46 MJ/kgCO2.
produce green hydrogen and oxygen. The CO2 is absorbed and separated Fig. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of the low-pressure process for
from the heated flue gas (stream 10), and the captured CO2 is utilized in capturing CO2 emissions, which involves the absorption of CO2 in an
the e-methanol synthesis (stream 27). Part of the green hydrogen is sent absorber column and solvent regeneration in a stripper column. The
to the methanol production unit to produce e-methanol. Once the carbon dioxide-rich flue gas stream enters the absorption column at the
product stream exited an equilibrium reactor in this design, the e- bottom, where it contacts the alkanol amine in a countercurrent manner.
methanol product was separated as a liquid by reducing the tempera­ The alkanol amine takes in CO2 through chemical reactions, which
ture. The vapor phase of the separator was recycled to a mixer, where it removes it from the flue gas and sends it to the solvent regeneration unit
was combined with the reactant supply stream. The recycling ratio was as a CO2-rich solvent stream. The lean solvent stream (reboiler outlet)
modified to divide the product’s vapor phase into two streams. The preheats the CO2-rich solvent stream (cold stream) in a heat exchanger
product streams were then merged and transferred to a purification prior to entering the stripper. Inside the stripper column, at low pressure
process. The power distributor serves some power as the last product and high temperature, carbon dioxide is stripped from the rich solvent
after meeting the electricity requirements of the system. and exits at the top of the column. The reflux drum returns the proper
amount of reflux fluid to enrich the top product. The lean solvent stream
2.2. Thermodynamic analysis exits the stripper column reboiler at a high temperature. After passing
through the rich/lean amine heat exchanger, the CO2-rich solvent
Thermodynamic modeling was conducted in Aspen HYSYS v11 stream is cooled to the required temperature for absorbing CO2 in the
software utilizing the chemical solvent-acid gas package because of its absorption column.
feasibility for the removal of hydrogen sulfide and CO2. The physi­ Additionally, throughout the operation of the adsorption system,
ochemical characteristics of these acid gases, water, pure amines, and periodic additions of pure adsorbent solution are required to compen­
piperazine were all addressed. A detailed analysis of rate computations, sate for the solution’s degradation. Typically, the solvent consumption
chemical absorption simulations, and molecular thermodynamic models ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 kg per ton of CO2 adsorbed [20]. In this work, a
for aqueous amine solutions has resulted in the acid gas characteristics make-up value of 1.5 kg/tCO2 was applied.
package. The acid gas properties package employs the thermodynamic
models listed below: 2.2.2. Methanol production unit
E-methanol production via a carbon dioxide hydrogenation process
⁃ The eNRTL (Electrolyte NRTL) thermodynamic model was used to was simulated using the ASPEN HYSYS V11 process simulator. The
find the electrolyte activity coefficients in the liquid phase. mixer was fed 72 kg/h of carbon dioxide at 40 ◦ C and 120 kg/h of
⁃ Utilizing the Peng Robinson equation of state (EOS) for fugacity hydrogen at 25 ◦ C at a pressure of 20 bar. The feed stream was then
calculations in the vapor phase. compressed to a certain reaction pressure and heated to the pre­
determined reaction temperature. The production of methanol consists
In Aspen HYSYS, the acid gas properties package utilizes the eNRTL of two phases. In the first phase, methanol is synthesized from reactants
thermodynamic model along with other parameters derived from in a reactor at equilibrium. The Eqs. (1) through (3) explain the oper­
extensive regression analysis of the physical and thermodynamic prop­ ating equation of the methanol synthesis unit.
erties of aqueous amine solutions. It is important to note that for the
CO2 + 3H2 → CH3 OH + H2 O (1)
chemical absorption process to purify flue gases, exothermic reactions
occur between solvents and carbon dioxide in the absorption section, CO + H2 O → H2 + CO2 (2)
while endothermic reactions occur in the stripping section. This results
in equilibrium between the amine and acidic gas reactions, with the CO + H2 O→CH3 OH (3)
forward reaction relating to absorption and the reverse reaction relating
to solvent regeneration. The equations required to analyze system per­ The stream that comes out of the reactor is cooled to condense the
formance are presented in this section with the following assumptions liquid product, which is mostly methanol and water. This is then sent to
[17]. a distillation column to clean up the methanol. The unreacted gas, which
is mostly H2 and CO, is sent back to the reactor to improve the overall
⁃ The system was running under steady-state conditions. conversion efficiency. The methanol is then temporarily stored in liquid
⁃ Heat losses in the heat exchangers, separators, condensers, and pipes form at atmospheric pressure and pumped to local utilities for use as a
were disregarded, and the pressure drop was not considered. renewable fuel or chemical reactant.
⁃ The inlet kinetic energies of the ejectors were deemed negligible. The second phase is the purification of methanol. In the process of
⁃ The turbines and compressors were assumed to have efficiencies of methanol purification, the liquid methanol product was forwarded to
90% and 95%, respectively. the first distillation column to remove light components (carbon diox­
ide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen) from a methanol and water
mixture. The bottom stream from the first distillation, which includes
2.2.1. Carbon Capture unit primarily methanol and water, was passed to the second column of
The emissions in the methanol production process are attributed to distillation to separate the water from the methanol product. As

3
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

demonstrated in Fig. 2, the methanol product has a molecular purity of Table 1

99.5%. Characteristics and input data of bagasse-biomass.
Biomass type Bagasse
2.2.3. Water electrolyzer unit
Moisture content (%by weight) 10 %
The green hydrogen essential for the catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 Latent heat of vaporization (LHV) 17,438 kJ/kg
to e-methanol is anticipated to be generated by the electrolysis of water. Ultimate analysis (dry basis by weight)
The main advantages this method has over traditional alkaline systems Carbon 49.50 %
are a quicker cold start-up, more flexibility, and, as a result, a better Oxygen 43.50 %
Nitrogen 1.20 %
coupling with dynamic and intermittent power-generating systems, such Hydrogen 5.80 %
as renewable energy sources such as biomass, solar, and wind. Water
electrolysis is a popular environmentally friendly process capable of
producing hydrogen at all scales using deionized water and direct cur­ 2.2.4. Power generation unit
rent (DC) electricity. The required power and freshwater for the elec­ The ultimate analysis of the studied bagasse biomass is shown in
trolysis process were obtained using Eqs. (2) and (3) [21]. Table 1 [22]. Bagasse biomass with high-pressure air and steam entered
the gasifier to undergo the chemical reaction in Eq. (5) [23].
Melec × Eelec
Ẇ elec = (2)
ηelec × ηrec

( ) ( ) ( )
Ca1 Ha2 Oa3 Na4 dryfuel
+ (a5 (O2 + 3.76N2 ))air + a6 H2 Ogas steam + a7 H2 Oliq moisture = (b1 CH4 + b2 CO + b3 CO2 + b4 H2 + b5 H2 O + b6 N2 )syngas (5)

ṁH2
Melec = (3) The coefficient a1 was equal to 1, for every atom of carbon in the
MMH2
biomass fuel, and the coefficients a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, and a7 were calculated
where Ẇelec is the required power for water electrolysis (kW), Melec is the using Eq. (6) through (11), respectively, as follows:
electrolyzed water rate (kmol.hr− 1), Eelec is the electrical energy for (xH /MH )
water electrolysis (79.45 kWh.kmol− 1), ηelec is the electrolyzer efficiency a2 = (6)
(xC /MC )
(0.90), ηrec is the rectifier efficiency (0.95), ṁH2 is the mass flowrate of
hydrogen (kg.hr− 1), and MMH2 is the molar mass hydrogen (2.016 kg (xO /MO )
(7)
kmol− 1). The number of electrolyzed cells (Nelec ) was determined using
a3 =
(xC /MC )
Eq. (4).
(xN /MN )
Ẇ elec a4 = (8)
Nelec = 3
(4) (xC /MC )
Ielec × Velec × 10−
AFR × Mwetfuel
where Ielec is the electric current through the electrolyzer, and Velec is the a5 = (9)
Mair
working voltage of the electrolyzer.
SAFR × Mwetfuel
a6 = (10)
MH2 O

Fig. 2. Process flow diagram of e-methanol synthesis.

4
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

Mdryfuel × mc 2.2.5. Cooling production unit

a7 = (11) The cooling system has a pump (P-1), a throttling valve (valve), three
MH2O × (100 − mc)
heat exchangers (HEX-1, HEX-2, and HEX-3), and a steam jet ejector
where M and x are the molecular weights and mass fractions of biomass (SJE), which is a very important part that can be shown in Fig. A1 of the
fuel on a dry basis from the ultimate analysis, respectively, as shown in supplementary information (SI). The SJE consists of six sections:
Table 1; mc is the moisture content. SAFR is the stoichiometric air-fuel throat, section1, section2 primary flow, section2 secondary flow, sec­
ratio, and AFR is the actual air-fuel ratio. The molecular weight of dry tion3 (mixing and shock), and section d (diffuser), and functions as a
and wet fuel, respectively, was obtained using Eqs. (12) and (13) [12]. thermal heat pump in the system. To model the SJE, an iterative
mathematical program based on a constant area mixing concept was
Mdryfuel = a1 MC + a2 MH + a3 MO + a4 MN (12) utilized, and the corresponding algorithm, dominant equations, and
model parameters are provided in Table A1 of the SI. Additional details
Mwetfuel = Mdryfuel + a7 MH2O (13)
on ejector modeling can be found in Ref. [26]. The thermodynamic
The SAFR and AFR are given in Eqs. (14) and (15) as follows: properties of the various sections were determined using the program,
and the mass balance of the SJE was obtained using the entertainment
(a1 + 0.25a2 − 0.5a3 )Mair ratio, as outlined in Eqs. (24) and (25).
SAFR = (14)
Mwetfuel /
ξ = ṁ18 ṁ (24)
AFR = RAFR + SAFR (15) 11

where RAFR is the relative air-fuel ratio. The mole balance equations for ṁ12 = ṁ18 + ṁ11 (25)
the reaction described in Eq. (5) were solved using Taylor’s series
The heat exchangers were modeled using the Eqs. (26) and (27).
method to calculate syngas’ coefficients in gasification. It was achieved
with the equilibrium constant equation for both the water shift and ΔTmin
εHEX = (26)
methane reforming reaction [24]. (Th )in − (Tc )in
Flue gas burned with excess air in the combustion chamber (CC), and ( ) ( )
the amount of air supplied into the CC depended on the inlet tempera­ SgV = ṁcp cold − ṁcp hot (27)
ture of the gas turbine. Thus, the amount of air was obtained from the
reactants and product energy balance equation. The chemical equation where the subscripts c and h represent the cold and hot streams,
for the complete combustion of syngas is given in Eq. (16). respectively. Cp is the specific heat capacity at constant pressure, and Δ
Tmin is the temperature difference between the inflow and outflow of the
(b1 CH4 + b2 CO + b3 CO2 + b4 H2 + b5 H2 O + b6 N2 )syngas + (λ(O2 + 3.76N2 ))air
cold side of the HEX if the sign variable is smaller than zero (SgV < 0)
= (c1 CO2 + c2 H2 O + c3 O2 + c4 N2 )products and vice versa. (Tc )in and (Th )in , respectively, represent the temperatures
(16) of the hot and cold inflows. εHEX is the effectiveness of the heat ex­
changers. The pump and throttling valve were modeled using Eq. (28)
where λ is the air amount. The combusted products leaving the CC was through (30) [27].
solved numerically using Taylor’s series. The CC was modeled using the
energy and mass balance equations as given in Eq. (17) through (19). Ẇ pump =
ṁpump × v × (Pout − Pin )
(28)
ηpump
ṁfluegas × ηCC × LHV = ṁbm × Cpeg (Tout ) × Tout
− ṁair × Cair (Tin ) × Tin + ṁfluegas × (1 − ηCC ) × LHV (17) (hvalve )in = (hvalve )out (29)
( ) ( )
ṁbm = ṁair + ṁfluegas (18)
ṁvalve = ṁvalve (30)
in out
∑
k
Cpeg (Tout ) = ṁeg × wi × Cp,k (Tout ) (19) where Ẇpump is the required power of the pump (kW), v is the specific
volume (m3.kg− 1), P is the pressure (kPa), ηpump is the isentropic effi­
k=1

By using the power from a gas turbine (GT), the air compressor (AC) ciency of the pump (0.9), and h represents the specific enthalpy (kJ.
provided compressed air for combustion with the syngas. The AC and GT kg− 1). Since both pump and valve control volumes with a single input
were modeled using Eqs. (20) and (21), respectively. and a single output, the mass flowrate of the inflow is equal to that of the
Ẇ AC = ṁair × Cpair (Tout ) × Tout − Cpair (Tin ) × Tin (20) outflow. The new power output (Ẇnet ) and thermal efficiency of each
subsystem and proposed integrated system are calculated using the Eqs.
Ẇ GT = ṁbm × Cpeg (Tin ) × Tin − Cpeg (Tout ) × Tout (21) (31) through (36).
( )
The AC and the GT outlet temperature was determined using Eqs. Ẇ net = Ẇ GT − Ẇ AC + Ẇ P + Ẇ elec (31)
(22) and (23), respectively [25].
[( )AF− 1 ]
Tout 1 Pout AF Ẇ GT − Ẇ AC
=1+ × − 1 (22) ηth,PGU = (32)
Tin ηAC Pin ṁbiomass × LHVbiomass
[ ( )1− AF ] ṁMeOH × LHVMeOH
Tout 1 Pin AF ηth,MPU = (33)
=1− × 1− (23) ṁH2 × LHVH2 + Ẇ GT,MeOH + Q̇MeOH
Tin ηGT Pout
ṁH2 × LHVH2
where ηAC , ηGT and AF is the isentropic efficiency of the AC, gas turbine, ηth,WEU = (34)
Ẇ elec
air specific heat ratio, respectively.
ṁ17 × (h18 − h17 )
ηth,CPU = (35)
ṁ9 × (h9 − h10 ) + ṁ20 × h20

5
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

2.4. Exergy analysis

Ẇ net + ṁMeOH × LHVMeOH + ṁH2 × LHVH2 + ṁ17 × (h18 − h17 )
ηth = (36)
ṁbiomass × LHVbiomass + ṁ20 × h20
The steady-state exergy balance of the exergy is expressed using Eq.
where ṁbiomass is the mass of bagasse biomass, LHVbiomass is the latent heat (44) [26].
( ) ∑
of vaporization of biomass, ẆGT,MeOH is the electricity consumption for ∑
˙ D=
Ex ˙ in + Q̇ × 1 − T0 −
Ex ˙ out − Ẇ
Ex (44)
methanol synthesis plant, ṁMeOH is the methanol mass flowrate, T
LHVMeOH is the lower heating value of methanol (19.9 MJ kg− 1), ṁH2 is
the mass flow rate of hydrogen product, and LHVH2 is the lower heating where Ex ˙ D is the exergy destruction due to system irreversibilities.
value of hydrogen, which is 119.95 MJ kg− 1. In addition, Q̇MeOH is the subscripts in represents inlet specific exergy, and out represents outlet
hot utilities which is required for methanol synthesis plant, ηth is the specific exergy. Ex
˙ represents the exergy rate and is obtained using Eq.
thermal efficiency of the overall system, ηth,MPU is the energy efficiency (45).
of the methanol synthesis subsystem, ηth,PGU is the energy efficiency of
˙ = Ex
Ex ˙ ph + Ex
˙ ch (45)
the power generation unit, ηth,WEU is the energy efficiency of the water
electrolysis unit, and ηth,CPU is the energy efficiency of the cooling pro­ where Ex ˙ ch and Ex˙ ph are the chemical and physical exergies, respec­
duction unit. tively. The chemical and physical exergies are calculated using Eqs. (46)
and (47), apiece as follows [31]:
2.3. Economic model ⎛ ⎞
ż
The objective of the economic analysis in this simulation study is to (46)
wf
˙ ⎝
˙ ch = m×
Ex ⎠ × ėch,wf
MWwf
calculate the methanol production cost. A nonlinear economic model
was developed using the mathematical program of the proposed inte­
grated system to obtain total annual costs (TAC) as given in Eq. (35) ˙ ph = (h − h0 ) − T0 × (s − s0 )
Ex (47)
[28].
where ėch,wf is the standard molar specific chemical exergy, and MWwf is
TAC = ACC + AOC (35) the molecular mass of the organic fluid. h is the state-specific enthalpy, s
is the state-specific entropy, and T is the temperature. The rate of exergy
where ACC are the annual capital costs. To find the ACC, the total cost
for bagasse biofuel is obtained using Eq. (48) [32].
investment (TCI) is multiplied by capital recovery factor (CRF), as in
Eqs. (36) and (38) [29]. ˙ biomass = ṁbiomass × (LHV + 2442 × mc) × θdry
Ex (48)
ACC = TCI × CRF (36) For dry organic substances in bagasse biofuel consisting of hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, θdry is obtained by Eq. (49).
in × (1 + in)lc
CRF = (37) θdry = 10.437 + 0.1882 ×
mH
+ 0.0610 ×
mO
+ 0.0404 ×
mN
(49)
(1 + in)lc − 1 mc mc mc
∑ This study considers the exergy account for the whole system and
TCI = CPEC + Ccivil + Ceng + Ccont (38)
uses the exergy of input flue gas, input exergy related to consuming work
where in and lc are the interest rate and plant life cycle, which are by pumps, compressors, and electrolyzer, and input exergy of reboilers
assumed to be 5 % and 20 years, respectively. CPEC is the purchased in the distillation columns for solvent regeneration and methanol sep­
equipment cost of all components, defined in Table A2 of the SI [30]. aration in the CCU and MPU. So, the exergy efficiency (ψ sys ) is given by
Ccivil , Ceng , and Ccont , respectively, are the civil & construction costs, the following equation.
engineering & supervision costs, and contingency costs of the proposed ∑
˙ D,total
Ex
integrated system, which are given in Eq. (39) through (41). ψ sys = 1 − (50)
˙ in
Ex
∑
Ccivil = 0.15 × CPEC (39) The exergy destructions were calculated for all components of the
∑ proposed integrated system. The correlated equations used to calculate
Ceng = 0.15 × CPEC (40) Ex
˙ D of the system are presented in Table A3 of the SI.
∑
Ccont = 0.2 × CPEC (41) 2.5. CO2 emission analysis

In the present paper, the investment payback period was assumed to In this study, an analysis of CO2 emissions is conducted for the
be 3 years. The Energy Cost is the summation of cooling water cost (0.354 proposed integrated multigeneration system, and the results are
$/GJ), Fuel cost (7.78$/GJ), and Electricity cost (0.06$/kWh). The total compared with previous research. The total CO2 emission
production cost (TPC) and methanol production cost (MPC) are calcu­ (CO2 emissiontotal ) encompasses both direct CO2 emission (εCO2 ,direct ) and
lated by Eqs. (42) and (43), respectively. indirect CO2 emission (εCO2 ,indirect ), which can be calculated using Eq.
TAC (51).
TPC = (42)
TAP CO2 emissiontotal = εCO2 ,direct + εCO2 ,indirect (51)
TACmethanol
MPC = (43) where εCO2 ,direct is determined through mass balance calculations, ac­
ṁmethanol
counting for the CO2 released from process streams. On the other hand,
where TAP is the total annual product produced from the multi­ εCO2 ,indirect includes emissions resulting from heat and electricity con­
generation system which includes power, cooling load, e-methanol, sumption, considering specific emission factors, as given in Eq. (52).
green hydrogen, and oxygen, and TACmethanol is the total annual cost of (∑ ) (∑ ) (∑ )
the methanol production unit. εCO2 ,indirect = β × EF + γ × EF + δ × EF
electricity thermal utility

(52)

6
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

where β, γ, and δ are consumptions of electricity utility (MWh), heat Table 3

Energy performance parameters of the proposed system.
utility (MMBtu), and water utility (kg), respectively. EF is the CO2
emission factor. For thermal, the CO2 emission factor per MMBtu is Item Symbol Unit Value
205.3 pounds, while for electricity, it amounts to 596 kg per MWh [33]. Energy Input of Biomass Ėbio MW 39.83
The CO2 emission factor per ton of freshwater, recycling water, and Energy Input of Utility Ėutil MW 5.94
steam are 0.000606, 0.000356, and 0.235 kg. Furthermore, the εCO2 ,direct Total energy input Ėsys MW 45.77
of the proposed multigeneration system can be determined by summing Mass flowrate of e-methanol ṁMeOH kg/hr. 430.25
GT energy output ẆGT MW 26.75
up the emissions from the purge and light component streams.
Cooling load Q̇cooling MW 0.30
Energy output of Green H2 ĖH2 MW 6.33
3. Results and discussion Mass flowrate of Green H2 ṁH2 kg/hr. 190
Mass flowrate of Captured CO2 ṁCO2 kg/hr. 144
In this section, the performance of the proposed integrated multi­ Mass flowrate of O2 ṁO2 kg/hr. 43.2
generation system is analyzed using energy, economic, and exergy Net power output Ẇnet MW 19.80
Energy Efficiency % 78.13
points of view via initial parameter sets. Thermodynamic and economic ηth
Exergy Efficiency ψ sys % 71.63
analyses were carried out to calculate the thermodynamic efficiency of
subsystems, and the overall efficiency of the proposed e-methanol and
green H2 synthesis multigeneration integrated system, and system per­
formance concerning power, cooling, green H2, and e-methanol
production.
The model-based thermodynamic analyses were performed in the
Engineering Equation Solver (EES) environment and Aspen HYSYSv11.
EES software is used to expand an appropriate code to validate the re­
sults of thermodynamic analyses of the simulated e-methanol, green H2,
power, and cooling multigeneration integrated system. Based on the
developed code, our mathematical model-based thermodynamic results
are compared with previously established work while considering the
same input data and assumptions.

3.1. Energy analysis

Energy analysis is a vital tool for examining energy transformations

within a system and its surroundings. The aim of this study is to assess
the energy efficiencies of individual units and the overall proposed in­
tegrated multigeneration system. The energy analysis was done to find
out how well the integrated multigeneration system worked, how much
energy it used, and what products it made under the conditions shown in Fig. 3. Energy efficiency of the subsystems of the proposed system.
Table 2. The biomass gasification-based power plant involves a biomass
mass flow rate of 0.89 kg/s and a water feed rate of 21 kg/s. The sys­ consumption of 45.77 MW, the conversion efficiency from biomass to
tem’s total output amounts to 29.43 MW, comprising various compo­ methanol chemical and electrical energy reaches an impressive 78.13%
nents: 2.38 MW of methanol and 3.25 MW of H2 chemical energy, 23.5 through the proposed system design. The biomass gasification and
MW of electrical energy, and 0.3 MW of cooling load in the form of methanol synthesis cycle efficiencies are determined to be 46.95% and
thermal energy. 19.06%, respectively, as calculated using equations (32) and (33) and
The results of the thermodynamic modeling are summarized in depicted in Fig. 3. These findings demonstrate the efficacy of the pro­
Table A4 of the SI while the energy consumption and production of each posed solution in maximizing the utilization of biomass energy in an
unit in the proposed integrated multigeneration system are summarized efficient manner.
in Table 3, highlighting the energy requirements and outputs in terms of The proposed system demonstrates an intricate energy flow, starting
power, methanol, hydrogen, and cooling. Based on the total power with biomass and 0.48 MW of electrical energy. Through the gasifier and
HEX-1, the energy is directed to the carbon capture unit and subse­
Table 2 quently to the methanol production unit, resulting in a total energy
The operation condition of the proposed integrated multigeneration system. output of 2.38 MW. Additionally, the water electrolysis unit generates
Constraints Symbol Value Ref.
green H2 at a rate of 190 kg/h (3.25 MW of energy), where a portion of
H2 is transferred to the methanol production unit. In the methanol
Gas turbine isentropic efficiency ηgt 80 % [12]
reactor, the hydrogen gas undergoes compression using a multi-stage
Pump isentropic efficiency ηpump 90 % [34]
compressor, and after circulation and cooling, it yields a methanol
Air compressor isentropic efficiency ηac 85 % [12]
Combustion chamber isentropic efficiency ηcc 87 % [12] production rate of 430.25 kg/h. These values are comprehensively
GT inlet temperature T8 1000K [12] summarized in Table 3. Furthermore, the carbon capture unit produces
Gasifier outlet temperature T3 1000K [12] 144 kg/h of CO2, while the waste heat from HEX-1 is effectively utilized
Primary flow pressure P11 240kPa [26] for providing the necessary cooling load. The overall energy utilization
Temperature difference in HEX-1 ΔTHEX− 10.7K –
of the system is impressive, with 78.13% of the energy being harnessed
1
Temperature difference in HEX-2 ΔTHEX− 2 8.2K –
Temperature difference in HEX-3 ΔTHEX− 3 15.1K – to produce methanol, green H2, power, cooling, and O2. These results
Temperature difference in HEX-4 ΔTHEX− 4 10K – demonstrate the advanced nature of the newly proposed design,
Nozzle throat efficiency ηt 100 % [35] emphasizing its efficiency and potential in energy generation.
Nozzle outlet efficiency ηs 85 % [35]
Mixing efficiency ηm 67 % [35]
Diffuser efficiency ηd 85 % [35]

7
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

Fig. 4. Exergy flow of the proposed integrated multigeneration system.

3.2. Exergy analysis

Exergy analysis offers a comprehensive understanding of system

performance and efficiency by considering both the quantity and quality
of energy. In this research, a thorough exergy analysis was conducted to
assess the system’s efficiency and identify the components responsible
for exergy destruction. The system is analyzed using Eq. (44) through
(50), enabling a detailed evaluation of how exergy was utilized, reused,
and lost within the subsystems. The findings shown in Fig. 4 demon­
strate the distribution of exergy within the system. The exergy analysis
reveals that the total exergy input of the studied system amounts to
111.17 MW, with 33.67 MW contributed by biomass. On the other hand,
the total exergy output of the system is 99.06 MW, resulting in an overall
exergy efficiency of 71.63%. This analysis provides valuable insights
into the system’s efficiency in terms of exergy utilization and highlights
areas where exergy losses occur. By considering exergy as a measure of
energy quality, this analysis offers a more comprehensive understanding
of the system’s performance and can guide improvements in energy
conversion and utilization within the system. Fig. 5. Distribution of exergy destruction and ratio of each component of the
The results of the exergy analysis indicate that the total exergy proposed system.
destruction of the system is 12.11 MW. Among the different units, the
power generation unit accounts for the largest portion with 10.05 MW, exergy losses.
primarily attributed to the gas turbine and combustion chamber. A lot of Understanding the distribution of exergy destruction within the
exergy is lost in the PGU because of chemical reactions and entropy system is crucial for identifying areas of inefficiency and guiding po­
creation in the gasifier, as well as partial combustion and chemical re­ tential improvements. By addressing the factors contributing to exergy
actions inside the combustion chamber. On the other hand, the water destruction in the PGU and WEU, such as optimizing combustion pro­
electrolysis unit contributes 1.01 MW of exergy destruction. This high cesses and improving heat transfer efficiency, the overall system per­
value is due to the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy formance can be enhanced, leading to higher exergy efficiency and
and low-quality heat energy. It is noteworthy that although the WEU resource utilization. Fig. 5 shows the exergy destruction ratio of each
exhibits the highest exergy damage rate, its overall exergy destruction is component. According to the figure, the gas turbine and combustion
lower than that of the PGU. This is primarily because the WEU has a chamber were the primary sources of exergy destruction in the PGU,
smaller volume compared to the PGU. Furthermore, the exergy contributing 61.21% and 34.95%, respectively. This was primarily due
destruction in the cooling production unit is found to be negligible in to the mixing of biomass, steam, and compressed air at high pressure,
comparison to the other units. This is mainly attributed to the utilization entropy generation associated with partial combustion, and the chemi­
of waste heat from gases produced in the combustion chamber, which cal reaction in the combustion chamber. For the methanol production
eliminates the need for direct fuel energy consumption and reduces unit, the largest exergy destruction ration occurred at distillation tower

8
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

Table 4
Comparison with other similar literature on energy and exergy efficiency.
Biomass/Coal to methanol Water Electrolyzer Carbon capture SJE cycle Energy Efficiency (%) Exergy Efficiency (%) Ref.

✓ – ✓ – 50.8 – [39]
✓ – – – 47.0 – [40]
✓ ✓ – – 53.3 52.3 [37]
✓ – ✓ – 62.0 – [36]
✓ ✓ – – 68.0 64.8 [38]
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 78.1 71.6 Current work

1, contributing 39.45 %, primarily because of the methanol synthesis

reactor. The evaporator exhibited the most considerable exergy
destruction in CPU at 77.3 %, primarily because of the decomposition of
an enormous water quantity that led to significant entropy generation
and high exergy destruction.
The exergy analysis of the system reveals valuable insights into its
performance and efficiency. The individual exergy efficiencies of the
different units, MPU, PGU, WEU, and CPU, are determined to be 41.9%,
89.6%, 68.8%, and 80.6%, respectively. These efficiencies contribute to
the overall exergy efficiency of the integrated multigeneration system,
which is measured at 71.6%.
Comparing the energy and exergy efficiencies of this study with
similar articles, it is evident that this paper outperforms them, as sum­
marized in Table 4. This superiority can be attributed to the incorpo­
ration of electrolytic water and steam jet ejector-based cooling
production subsystems. These additions enable the recovery of flue
gases within the system, enhancing both energy and exergy efficiencies.
Additionally, the higher energy quality of the electricity generated in
this study significantly improves the exergy efficiency of the system,
further distinguishing it from other references. Moreover, when
compared to alternative technologies like coal to methanol [36], and Fig. 6. The share of total capital cost of each subsystem of the proposed system.
other biomass to methanol [37], and methanol synthesis [38] processes
proposed by other researchers (see Table 4), the proposed scheme ex­
Table 6
hibits higher total exergetic efficiency. This showcases the superiority of Comparison of methanol product cost with those of previous studies.
the proposed design in terms of exergy utilization and overall system
Technology Reduction TPC Ref.
performance.
(%) ($/kg)
The elevated exergy efficiencies achieved in this study demonstrate
the effectiveness of the integrated multigeneration system and its po­ Coproduction of electricity and methanol 84.90 0.576 [42]
through renewable hydrogen and CO2
tential to enhance resource utilization and energy conversion. By opti­ capture
mizing the performance of individual units and leveraging advanced Renewable methanol production 94.16 1.49 [41]
subsystems, the proposed approach showcases higher exergy efficiency Renewable methanol production 94.04 1.459
and sets a benchmark for efficient biomass-to-methanol systems. Trigeneration system using LFG 29.84 0.124 [43]
Multi-products utilizing bagasse-biomass – 0.087 Current
study

3.3. Economic analysis

capital cost is estimated to be $3,069,900, the power generation unit’s
The economic analysis is conducted to determine the competitive capital cost is estimated at about $1,183,611, and the SJE-based cooling
parameter of the total product cost for e-methanol and green hydrogen. unit’s capital cost is estimated to be $300,747. The subsystems’ pie
The economic analysis results are presented in Table 5, in which the chart, which consists of the share of each unit in the total capital cost, is
total annual cost of the proposed integrated multigeneration system, the shown in Fig. 6. According to the figure, the methanol production unit,
total product cost, and total the methanol product cost are $589,218, because of the distillation tower, reactor, and air compressor employ­
0.108 $/kg, and 0.103 $/kg, respectively. Furthermore, the MPU’s ment, has the main portion of the total capital cost of 66.07%.
Furthermore, an in-depth economic analysis was conducted to assess
Table 5 the competitive nature of methanol, hydrogen, and electricity product
The proposed integrated system’s economic analysis results. costs compared to previous studies. The results of this analysis are
Parameter Unit Value presented in Table 6. It is observed that the product cost of methanol
ACC $/year 470,219 produced through renewable energy sources ranges between 1.459 and
AOC $/year 118,999 1.49 $/kg. These values represent a significant cost reduction of
TAC $/year 589,218 94.04–94.16% compared to previous methods [41]. Moreover, the
PGU $ 1,183,611 proposed integrated multigeneration system demonstrates remarkable
CPU $ 300,747
MPU $ 3,069,900
cost savings, reducing the methanol product cost by 84.90 % when
WEU $ 7313 compared to the CO2 hydrogenation method combined with renewable
CCU $ 85,200 energy [42]. Through this comparison, it is evident that the proposed
TCC $ 4,646,771 system achieves an average total cost reduction of 29.84 % compared to
TPC $/kg 0.0871
the tri-generation system that utilizes landfill gas [43].
MPC $/kg 0.103

9
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

This economic advantage justifies the proposed approach in terms of establishment of a substantial green hydrogen economy in the future.
cost competitiveness when compared to other renewable methanol This approach will also guarantee employment opportunities, revenue
production processes and their derivatives. By considering the sub­ generation, and knowledge retention.
stantial reduction in product costs achieved through the proposed sys­ The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will have
tem, it becomes evident that the economic viability of the process is not a profound impact on the structure and spatial distribution of the energy
only technologically sound but also economically justified. These find­ trade. The significant cost of transportation resulting from hydrogen and
ings highlight the potential of the integrated multigeneration system to methanol, together with the geopolitical landscape of the nations
offer significant economic benefits in the production of methanol and involved in their production, will have a crucial impact on ensuring the
hydrogen, considering a sustainable framework and carbon-neutral en­ stability of export markets. The South Asian nations, such as India,
ergy systems. Pakistan, and Bangladesh, have yet to make substantial commitments
about the use of hydrogen and methanol. However, it is plausible that
3.4. CO2 emission and SWOT analysis these countries might emerge as key markets for these energy sources by
2050. This potential is attributed to their vast populations, expected
It is important to highlight that the proposed integrated multi­ economic development rates, and the pressing need for decarbonization.
generation system benefits from the biomass gasification-based power The potential of e-methanol in various European cities has been
plant, which supplies all the required electricity for compressors, pumps, assessed, revealing a significant portion that may be used as a fuel for
and electrolyzer, resulting in zero εCO2 ,indirect through the consumption of vehicles. This has the potential to support the European Union in ful­
∑
electricity (( β × EF)electricity ). However, emissions should be consid­ filling its commitments under the Paris Agreement, particularly in the
ered for electricity generation in the proposed system. The duties of the transportation sector.
methanol distillation column reboiler 1 and 2 are 0.19 MMBtu/h and Most of the green hydrogen and e-methanol technologies are now in
0.99 MMBtu/h, respectively. Based on the given emission factors, this their early stages of development and need significant amounts of en­
results in a value of 110.03 kg/h for the parameter εCO2 ,indirect . In addi­ ergy. Presently, a primary challenge confronting green fuel technologies
tion, according to the results of the proposed system analysis, εCO2 ,direct is pertains to the need to diminish production costs while concurrently
151.6 kg/h. Therefore, CO2 emissiontotal of the proposed system is sustaining the highest efficiency levels. Considerable study has been
calculated as 261.63 kg/h. The analysis reveals that 42.06% of the dedicated to this subject, specifically focusing on addressing concerns
emissions are attributed to εCO2 ,indirect , while 57.94% arise from εCO2 ,direct . such as the appropriate size of electrolyzers, intermittent operation,
Based on the results summarized in Table 7, the CO2 emission of the output pressure, oxygen production, and water consumption. The en­
proposed integrated multigeneration system is significantly lower ergy efficiency of green hydrogen is significantly diminished during
compared to those of the coal-to-methanol process [44], each phase of its supply chain. Approximately 30–35 % of the energy
coal-to-methanol with CO2 capture [44], and the natural utilized in the hydrogen production process is dissipated during elec­
gas-to-methanol process [33]. Furthermore, due to the utilization of the trolysis. The conversion or liquefaction of hydrogen into alternative
steam jet ejector-based cooling cycle and the elimination of indirect carriers, such as ammonia, can lead to an energy loss ranging from 13 to
emissions through electricity utilities, the total CO2 emission of the 25%. Furthermore, the transportation of hydrogen necessitates supple­
proposed system is lower compared to a similar technology described in mentary energy inputs, typically amounting to 10–12% of the energy
Refs. [45,46]. content of the hydrogen itself. If these inefficiencies are not addressed
The integration of an analytical SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Op­ and improved, there will be a substantial need for the deployment of
portunities, and Threats) analysis is a strategic and essential approach renewable energy to power green hydrogen electrolyzers that can
employed to evaluate both the internal and external components of an effectively compete with the electrification of end-use processes.
operation. The study demonstrated the most effective techniques that Hydrogen and methanol are essential for the world to achieve net-
maximize strengths and opportunities while minimizing weaknesses and zero emissions by 2050 and keep global warming to 1.5◦ Celsius, ac­
threats [47]. The strengths represent the available resources for cording to a new IEA report Net Zero by 2050 [48]. Hydrogen has an
enhancing the performance of the carbon-neutral energy systems. The appealing quality due to its ability to either produce heat via combustion
main strength of the proposed system is low emissions of GHG. or generate electricity when combined with air in a fuel cell, with the
The storage of CO2 generated during the production of green only resulting waste being water. Additionally, it may be used within
hydrogen is one of the process’s primary challenges. By incorporating fuel cells to provide power for electric cars. Furthermore, it has the
factors such as gas prices, carbon capture usage and storage costs, and potential to serve as a source of heat for both residential and industrial
potential savings resulting from economies of scale, it is possible to es­ purposes. Lastly, it can serve as a raw material for various industrial
timate a feasible production cost of approximately US$ 1.3/kg. This cost operations. The summarized SWOT analysis is presented in Table 8.
is comparable to the production cost of grey hydrogen in certain markets
(e.g., the U.S.) and is lower than the costs in other significant markets Table 8
(EU, China, India). Furthermore, the existing infrastructure for green SWOT analysis of the proposed green hydrogen and e-methanol energy system.
hydrogen and the investment capabilities of the industrial networks, the Strengths Threats
exportation of green hydrogen and its derivatives can serve as a tran­
- Integration with smart grid with - Lack of specialists and experts in the field
sitional measure to shift away from fossil fuel exports and encourage the high efficiency regarding the implementation of hydrogen
- Sustainability and zero carbon and methanol energy projects for stationary
Table 7 emissions of the energy system applications
- Reduction of total economic and - Limited technical experience in both
Comparison of the CO2 emission of the proposed system with literature.
environmental cost producers and consumers
Technology Reduction kgCO2/ Ref. Opportunities Weaknesses
(%) kg
- Future green sustainable - Lack of an efficient transport, distribution,
Coal-to-methanol process 78.57 2.8 [44] development of energy system and storage systems
Coal-to-methanol with CO2 capture 52.00 1.25 [44] - Reducing environmental impacts - Insufficient cooperation between political
Natural gas to methanol process 57.14 1.4 [33] - Export market opportunities authorities and professional associations in
CO2 hydrogenation 65.71 1.75 [45] - Hydrogen and methanol in the the field of methanol energy and economic
Methanol synthesis with CO2 capture 33.33 0.9 [46] circular economy operators
Multi-products utilizing bagasse- – 0.61 Current - Stabilization of energy security - Lack of widespread awareness of
biomass work and price capabilities and potential benefits

10
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

4. Conclusions zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The utilization of carbon dioxide to create valuable products such as Credit author statement
methanol shows promise for addressing the issues of carbon emissions
and global warming. In the present study, a novel integrated multi­ Usman Safder: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
generation system is presented that includes a biomass gasification analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original draft, revision, and editing,
power plant, water electrolyzer, steam jet ejector refrigeration unit, and Visualization, Validation. Jorge-Loy Benitez: Writing - Revision and
methanol synthesis process to produce e-methanol, green H2, power, O2, editing, Visualization. ChangKyoo Yoo: Validation, Supervision.
and cooling load based on CO2 capture from power plant flue gas and its
conversion with high thermodynamic efficiency and low CO2 emission. Declaration of competing interest
In essence, this study focuses on the sustainable production approach
with higher thermodynamic efficiencies, lower costs, and lower CO2 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
emissions, with the following conclusions: interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
- In the power generation unit (PGU), the energy and exergy effi­
ciencies are 46.96% and 89.60%, respectively, while according to Data availability
the exergy analysis, the gas turbine (6.15 MW) has the highest irre­
versibility in the process. No data was used for the research described in the article.
- The exergy efficiency of the system is expected to reach 71.63%. The
biomass gasification-based power production unit and water elec­
Acknowledgements
trolysis subsystem are the top two contributors to irreversibility,
accounting for 83.01% and 8.36% of the total exergy destruction,
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF)
respectively. In addition, the other components of the system
grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No.
contribute relatively little to the total exergy destruction.
2021R1A2C2007838).
- The highest energy (96.70%) and exergy (89.60%) efficiencies
belong to the WEU and PGU subsystems, respectively, the main
Appendix A. Supplementary data
reason for which is generating a high amount of power and heat
integration within the system.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
- One of the advantages of the proposed integrated multigeneration
org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.130104.
system is the use of green hydrogen from the water electrolyzer and
the CO2 obtained from the PGU, which, in addition to enhancing the
References
thermodynamic performance, causes the CO2 emission to reach its
minimum. [1] Safder U, Tariq S, Yoo C. Multilevel optimization framework to support self-
- The economic analysis showed that the proposed process has an sustainability of industrial processes for energy/material recovery using circular
excellent position among similar methods regarding economic as­ integration concept. Appl Energy 2022;324:119685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2022.119685.
pects, and the value of the competitive parameter of total product [2] Global IEA. Energy Review 2019 - the latest trends in energy and emissions in
cost (0.087 $/kg) is lower than that of other studied methods. The 2019. Glob Energy Trends 2020:1–50.
high production rate and a rational balance between the production [3] Abbas M, Cho I, Kim J. Reliability-constrained optimal sizing and rechargeable
battery selection for improved load distribution in a fuel-cell hybrid railway
rates, together with the heat integration, are the factors causing the
propulsion system. Energy Convers Manag 2019;196:1167–79. https://doi.org/
product cost to be considerably lower than that of the previous 10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2019.06.061.
studies. Therefore, the new design is also suitable in terms of [4] Tariq S, Safder U, Nguyen HT, Ifaei P, Heo SK, Yoo CK. A novel solar assisted
multigeneration system devoid of external utilities for drought adaptation
economics.
considering water-exergy nexus analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2021. https://doi.org/
- The CO2 emission analysis shows that the proposed integrated mul­ 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117500.
tigeneration system has significantly lower CO2 emissions (0.61 [5] Lee J, Kim S, You S, Park YK. Bioenergy generation from thermochemical
kgCO2/kg), which is lower compared to other technologies. conversion of lignocellulosic biomass-based integrated renewable energy systems.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2023;178:113240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2023.113240.
The commercialization of implementing the proposed technology is [6] Biswal T, Shadangi KP, Sarangi PK, Srivastava RK. Conversion of carbon dioxide to
anticipated to occur within a medium-term timeframe (2025–2030). methanol: a comprehensive review. Chemosphere 2022;298:134299. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134299.
This can be attributed to several factors, including the rise in commercial [7] Ma H, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Li Z, Zhang K, Xue Z, et al. Optimized schemes of enhanced
costs of renewable methanol, which will be driven by new European shale gas recovery by CO2-N2 mixtures associated with CO2 sequestration. Energy
policies and decoupled from the price of fossil-derived methanol. Convers Manag 2022;268:116062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2022.116062.
Additionally, the investment required for electrolyzers, the only [8] Qin J, Zhong Q, Tang Y, Rui Z, Qiu S, Chen H. Co2 storage potential assessment of
component that is not yet commercially mature, is expected to decrease Offshore saline aquifers in China. SSRN Electron J 2022;341:127681. https://doi.
as the technology becomes more widely adopted and optimized. org/10.2139/ssrn.4173038.
[9] Haghighatjoo F, Rahimpour MR, Farsi M. Techno-economic and environmental
Furthermore, the anticipated increase in the price of CO2 credits,
assessment of CO2 conversion to methanol: direct versus indirect conversion
resulting from the utilization of captured carbon dioxide, will contribute routes. Chem Eng Process - Process Intensif 2023;184:109264. https://doi.org/
to economic viability. Lastly, the wider deployment of renewable energy 10.1016/j.cep.2023.109264.
[10] Van-Dal ÉS, Bouallou C. Design and simulation of a methanol production plant
sources is expected to lead to a reduction in the cost of renewable
from CO2 hydrogenation. J Clean Prod 2013;57:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
electricity, further enhancing the economic viability of the proposed jclepro.2013.06.008.
technology. It is important to note that the assumption of a conservative [11] Subramanian ASR, Gundersen T, Adams TA. Modeling and simulation of energy
scenario with a high proportion of intermittent renewable electricity systems: a review. Processes 2018;6. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6120238.
[12] Safder U, Nguyen HT, Ifaei P, Yoo CK. Energetic, economic, exergetic, and
supports the feasibility of this economic viability. exergorisk (4E) analyses of a novel multi-generation energy system assisted with
This insight indicates the increasing interest around this specific bagasse-biomass gasifier and multi-effect desalination unit. Energy 2021;219:
technology, which has the potential to emerge as a crucial avenue for 119638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119638.
[13] Safder U, Lim JY, How BS, Ifaei P, Heo S, Yoo C. Optimal configuration and
mitigating carbon emissions in sectors such as heavy transportation and economic analysis of PRO-retrofitted industrial networks for sustainable energy
industries, as part of the wider energy transition towards achieving net production and material recovery considering uncertainties: Bioethanol and sugar

11
U. Safder et al. Energy 290 (2024) 130104

mill case study. Renew Energy 2022;182:797–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in a sugar mill plant. Energy Convers Manag 2020;213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.10.047. enconman.2020.112810.
[14] Wiesberg IL, Brigagão GV, Araújo O de QF, de Medeiros JL. Carbon dioxide [32] Ptasinski KJ, Prins MJ, Pierik A. Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification.
management via exergy-based sustainability assessment: carbon Capture and Energy 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.06.024.
Storage versus conversion to methanol. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;112: [33] Nguyen TBH, Zondervan E. Methanol production from captured CO2 using
720–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.032. hydrogenation and reforming technologies_ environmental and economic
[15] Deng L, Adams II TA. Techno-economic analysis of coke oven gas and blast furnace evaluation. J CO2 Util 2019;34:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.05.033.
gas to methanol process with carbon dioxide capture and utilization. Energy [34] Safder U, Ifaei P, Yoo C. Multi-objective optimization and flexibility analysis of a
Convers Manag 2020;204:112315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cogeneration system using thermorisk and thermoeconomic analyses. Energy
enconman.2019.112315. Convers Manag 2018;166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.030.
[16] Yang CY, Fang Z, Li B, Long YF. Review and prospects of Jatropha biodiesel [35] Ifaei P, Safder U, Saman A, Charmchi T, Yoo C. An integrated steam jet ejector
industry in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2178–90. https://doi.org/ power plant for drought adaptation considering water-exergy nexus in an optimal
10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.043. platform. Energy Convers Manag 2021;227:113622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[17] Xia J, Guo Y, Li Y, Wang J, Zhao P, Dai Y. Thermodynamic analysis and comparison enconman.2020.113622.
study of two novel combined cooling and power systems with separators using [36] Shi C, Labbaf B, Mostafavi E, Mahinpey N. Methanol production from water
CO2-based mixture for low grade heat source recovery. Energy Convers Manag electrolysis and tri-reforming: process design and technical-economic analysis.
2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112918. J CO2 Util 2020;38:241–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.12.022.
[18] Xue B, Yu Y, Chen J, Luo X, Wang M. A comparative study of MEA and DEA for [37] Zhang H, Wang L, Pérez-Fortes M, Van herle J, Maréchal F, Desideri U. Techno-
post-combustion CO2 capture with different process configurations. Int J Coal Sci economic optimization of biomass-to-methanol with solid-oxide electrolyzer. Appl
Technol 2017;4:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-016-0149-7. Energy 2020;258:114071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114071.
[19] Luis P. Use of monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO2 capture in a global scenario: [38] Zhang Q, Chen H, Li B, Pan P, Xu G, Zhao Q, et al. A novel system integrating water
consequences and alternatives. Desalination 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. electrolysis and supercritical CO2 cycle for biomass to methanol. Appl Therm Eng
desal.2015.08.004. 2023;225:120234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120234.
[20] Mac Dowell N, Galindo A, Adjiman C, Jackson G. Advanced thermodynamic and [39] Harris K, Grim RG, Huang Z, Tao L. A comparative techno-economic analysis of
processing modelling integration for amine scrubbing in post-combustion CÕ2~ renewable methanol synthesis from biomass and CO2: opportunities and barriers to
capture. Nat Preced 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.2638.1. commercialization. Appl Energy 2021;303:117637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[21] Ifaei P, Charmchi AST, Vilela P, Safder U, Yoo CK. A new utility-free circular apenergy.2021.117637.
integration approach for optimal multigeneration from biowaste streams. Energy [40] Zhang D, Duan R, Li H, Yang Q, Zhou H. Optimal design, thermodynamic, cost and
Convers Manag 2022;254:115269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. CO2 emission analyses of coal-to-methanol process integrated with chemical
enconman.2022.115269. looping air separation and hydrogen technology. Energy 2020;203:117876.
[22] Ramirez JA, Brown R, Rainey TJ. Techno-economic analysis of the thermal https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117876.
liquefaction of sugarcane bagasse in ethanol to produce liquid fuels. Appl Energy [41] Chen J, Yang S, Qian Y. A novel path for carbon-rich resource utilization with
2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.127. lower emission and higher efficiency: an integrated process of coal gasification and
[23] Taheri MH, Mosaffa AH, Farshi LG. Energy, exergy and economic assessments of a coking to methanol production. Energy 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
novel integrated biomass based multigeneration energy system with hydrogen energy.2019.03.161.
production and LNG regasification cycle. Energy 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [42] Soltanieh M, Azar KM, Saber M. Development of a zero emission integrated system
energy.2017.02.124. for co-production of electricity and methanol through renewable hydrogen and
[24] Srinivas T, Reddy BV, Gupta S. Biomass-fuelled integrated power and refrigeration CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/ ijggc.2012.01.008.
2041296710394284. [43] Hai T, Lin H, Albdeiri MS, Alsenani TR, Elattar S, Abed AM, et al. A novel
[25] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic modeling and multi-objective trigeneration model using landfill gas upgrading process and waste heat recovery:
evolutionary-based optimization of a new multigeneration energy system. Energy Application of methanol, desalinated water, and oxygen production. J Clean Prod
Convers Manag 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.049. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136224.
[26] Ifaei P, Safder U, Yoo C. Multi-scale smart management of integrated energy [44] Dongliang W, Wenliang M, Huairong Z, Guixian L, Yong Y, Hongwei L. Green
systems, Part 1: energy, economic, environmental, exergy, risk (4ER) and water- hydrogen coupling with CO2 utilization of coal-to-methanol for high methanol
exergy nexus analyses. Energy Convers Manag 2019;197:111851. https://doi.org/ productivity and low CO2 emission. Energy 2021;231:120970. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111851. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120970.
[27] Safder U, Rana MA, Yoo C. Feasibility study and performance assessment of a new [45] Cordero-Lanzac T, Ramirez A, Navajas A, Gevers L, Brunialti S, Gandía LM, et al.
tri-generation integrated system for power, cooling, and freshwater production. A techno-economic and life cycle assessment for the production of green methanol
Desalin WATER Treat 2020;183:63–72. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.25251. from CO2: catalyst and process bottlenecks. J Energy Chem 2022;68:255–66.
[28] Tariq S, Safder U, Yoo C. Exergy-based weighted optimization and smart decision- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2021.09.045.
making for renewable energy systems considering economics, reliability, risk, and [46] Gu H, Liu J, Zhou X, Wu Q, Liu Y, Yu S, et al. Modelling of a novel electricity and
environmental assessments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;162:112445. https:// methanol co-generation using heat recovery and CO2 capture: comprehensive
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112445. thermodynamic, economic, and environmental analyses. Energy 2023;278:
[29] Moosazadeh M, Tariq S, Safder U, Yoo CK. Techno-economic feasibility and 127481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127481.
environmental impact evaluation of a hybrid solar thermal membrane-based power [47] Safder U, Hai TN, Loy-benitez J, Yoo C. Nationwide policymaking strategies to
desalination system. Energy 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. prevent future electricity crises in developing countries using data-driven
energy.2023.127923. forecasting and fuzzy-SWOT analyses. Energy 2022;259:124962. https://doi.org/
[30] Herold KE, Radermacher R, Klein SA. Absorption Chillers and heat pumps. 2016. 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124962.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b19625. [48] IEA. The outlook for biogas and biomethane to 2040 – Outlook for biogas and
[31] Safder U, Ifaei P, Yoo CK. A novel approach for optimal energy recovery using biomethane: prospects for organic growth – analysis - IEA. IEA (2020). Outlook
pressure retarded osmosis technology: chemical exergy pinch analysis – case study Biogas Biomethane Prospect Org Growth, IEA 2020.

12