Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Thermodynamic and economic analysis of polygeneration system

integrating atmospheric pressure coal pyrolysis technology with
circulating uidized bed power plant
Zhihang Guo, Qinhui Wang , Mengxiang Fang, Zhongyang Luo, Kefa Cen
State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s
 A lignite pyrolysis-based polygeneration plant was proposed and modeled.
 Polygeneration plant has a 9.04% point higher efciency than CFB power plant.
 Polygeneration plant increases ca. 14% point of IRR based on CFB power plant.
 Electricity price rise makes polygeneration plant less competitive.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 16 April 2013
Received in revised form 27 August 2013
Accepted 30 August 2013
Available online 27 September 2013
Keywords:
Polygeneration system
Coal pyrolysis
Circulating uidized bed power plant
Methanol
Thermodynamic and economic analysis

a b s t r a c t
Lignite-based polygeneration system has been considered as a feasible technology to realize clean and
efcient utilization of coal resources. A newly polygeneration system has been proposed, featuring the
combination of a 2  300 MW circulating uidized bed (CFB) power plant and atmospheric pressure uidized bed pyrolyzers. Xiaolongtan lignite is pyrolyzed in pyrolyzers. Pyrolyzed volatiles are further utilized for the co-generation of methanol, oil, and electricity, while char residues are red in CFB boilers to
maintain the full load condition of boilers. Detailed system models were built, and the optimum operation parameters of the polygeneration plant were sought. Technical and economic performances of optimum design of the polygeneration plant were analyzed and compared with those of the conventional CFB
power plant based on the evaluation of energy and exergy efciency, internal rate of return (IRR), and
payback period. Results revealed that system efciency and the IRR of the polygeneration plant are ca.
9% and 14% points higher than those of the power plant, respectively. The study also analyzed the effects
of market uctuations on the economic condition of the polygeneration plant, and found that prices of
fuel, material, and products have great impacts on the economic characteristics of the polygeneration
plant. Polygeneration plant is more economic than CFB power plant even when prices uctuate within
a wide range. This paper provides a thorough evaluation of the polygeneration plant, and the study indicates that the proposed polygeneration plant has a bright prospect.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
China relies heavily on coal, which accounts for 81.3% and 71.9%
of the energy supply and energy consumption respectively in 2010
[1]. However, the majority of coal is directly red for power generation, which has low efciency and gives rise to serious pollution.
The exploration of novel efcient and clean coal utilization technologies has drawn much attraction in recent years. Coal-based
polygeneration technology offering synthetic fuels, chemical
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 571 87952802; fax: +86 571 87951616.
E-mail addresses: guozhihang@zju.edu.cn (Z. Guo), qhwang@zju.edu.cn
(Q. Wang), mxfang@zju.edu.cn (M. Fang), zyluo@zju.edu.cn (Z. Luo), kfcen@zju.
edu.cn (K. Cen).
0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.086

products, and electricity, has been regarded as a promising

alternative to tackle current energy problems. To date, various
polygeneration schemes of different congurations depending on
the feedstock and products have been proposed [217]. Yi et al.
[2,3] reported a polygeneration system using coke-oven gas and
coal gasied gas and established a newly conguration with CO2
emission control. On the basis of integrated gasication combined
cycle (IGCC) technology, Liu et al. [5,6,16] developed coal-based
polygeneration systems with different congurations, which revealed better overall performance and more exibility than IGCC.
Kreutz et al. [9] and Chiesa et al. [8] put forward a polygeneration
technology using commercially ready technologies to produce
hydrogen and electricity with CO2 capture and storage. Yu et al.
[10] investigated the performance of polygeneration processes

1302

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Nomenclature
A
Aj
B

last period with a negative cumulative cash ow

domestic factor of facility j
absolute value of cumulative cash ow at the end of the
period A
bj
scale factor of facility j
Bt
net cash ow in year t of period A
C
annual net cash ow during the next period after A
CF
annual fuel cost, 106 $
Cj
capital investment of facility j, 106 $
CM
annual material cost, 106 $
Cp
annual product sales income, 106 $
CRF
ratio of annual investment
Ct
annual cash ow of the year t
CVCoal
caloric heat of coal, MJ/kg
CVMeOH caloric heat of methanol, MJ/kg
CVOil
caloric heat of oil, MJ/kg
EXcoal
exergy of coal, MW
EXElectricity exergy of electricity, MW
EXMeOH exergy of methanol, MW
EXOil
exergy of oil, MW
FCoal
ow rate of coal, kg/s
Fj
installation factor of facility j
FMeOH
ow rate of methanol, kg/s
FOil
ow rate of oil, kg/s
i
discount rate, %
Ir,j
purchase cost of facility j in the reference scale, 106 $
j
facility
m
total number of facilities
n
plant lifetime
O&M
ratio of annual operating expenditures and management cost to FCI
r
recycling tail gas ratio, %
Sj
present scale of facility j
Sr,j
scale of facility j in the reference scale
t
year
WElectricity electricity energy, MW

converting coal to liquid fuels and electricity with CO2 sequestration. Normann et al. [12] represented a CO2 neutral oxy-fuel polygeneration system co-producing transportation fuel and electricity
by co-ring coal and biomass.
Fluidized bed technology has been widely used in various
applications, such as coal/biomass gasier [1822], coal/biomass
pyrolyzer [2325], catalytic reactor [26,27] and circulating
uidized bed (CFB) boiler [2832]. A novel polygeneration facility
coupling an atmospheric pressure uidized bed pyrolyzer with a
CFB boiler for the simultaneous production of gas, tar, electricity
and steam was proposed by our research group [33], as shown in
Fig. 1. Coal is rstly fed into a pyrolyzer (550750 C) and
pyrolyzed into gas, tar, and char. The heat needed for pyrolysis is
provided by hot circulating solid, which is separated in the cyclone
and collected in the Loop seal of a CFB boiler. Volatiles, i.e., coal gas
and tar, are separated from y ash in cyclones. The char residue
and y ash are sent into the boiler via Loop seals and burnt at about
850950 C. Steam, which is generated in the boiler and back-pass
heat exchangers, can drive steam turbines (not shown here) to
generate electric power. Coal gas and tar can be cooled and separated in gas cooler and clean-up facilities. After purication, gas
is split into two parts; one part is pumped back into the pyrolyzer
to uidize the bed material while the other part cannot only be
used as domestic gas and gaseous fuel, but also be synthesized to
liquid fuel after further clean-up. Tar, chiey comprised of aliphatic
hydrocarbon, phenols, and aromatics, can be rened to chemicals

Greek symbols
a
interest rate during construction, %
g
system energy efciency, %
e
system exergy efciency, %
Abbreviations
BRL
boiler rated load
CFB
circulating uidized bed
CPD
chemical percolation devolatilization
DAEM
distributed activation energy model
DEPG
dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol
DPP
discounted payback period
FCI
xed capital investment, 106 $
FG-DVC functional group-depolymerisation vaporisation crosslinking
GE
General Electric Company
GTCC
gas turbine combined cycle
H/C
(H2  CO2)/(CO + CO2)
HP
high pressure
HRSG
heat recovery steam generator
IGCC
integrated gasication combined cycle
IP
intermediate pressure
IRR
internal rate of return, %
LHHW LangmuirHinshelwoodHougenWatson
LP
low pressure
MeOH
methanol
NMP
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
PC
propylene carbonate
PSA
pressure swing absorption
SPP
simple payback period
TIT
turbine inlet temperature
WGS
water gas shift
XLT
Xiaolongtan

or be upgraded to liquid fuels. The most outstanding feature of

the polygeneration technology is that it can easily fulll the staged
conversion of coal resources and also maintain the boiler run under
rated load (BRL) condition.
Over the past decade, on the basis of our fundamental research,
a 1 MW bench scale facility and a 12 MW pilot scale facility have
been successfully established and continuously operated [3436].
The next phase of our project is the building and operating of an
industrial scale facility. Ahead of the industrialization, we need
to evaluate the feasibility of a large-scale polygeneration plant,
and this is the task of this paper.
This work has the following objectives: (1) to propose a feasible
polygeneration system integrating a 2  300 MW CFB power plant
with atmospheric pressure uidized bed pyrolyzers for liquid fuels
and power generation; (2) to nd out optimal operation conditions
of the polygeneration plant and to analyze its thermodynamic and
economic feasibility when compared with a conventional
2  300 MW CFB power plant. As a basis for comparison, we ensure
the capacity of CFB boilers in both plants is the same.
2. Description of plants
2.1. Conventional CFB power plant
A subcritical CFB power plant is chosen as the reference plant.
This plant has a total installed power capacity of 2  300 MW. It

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

1303

Fig. 1. Principle chart of the polygeneration facility.

consists of 2 units, and each unit is 300 MW-scale. A simplied diagram of each unit can be found in Fig. 2. Coal particles are uidized
and combusted with hot air in the boiler at about 900 C. Limestone particles are used to capture SOx in the furnace. Flue gas is
separated from y ash in cyclones and then introduced into back
pass heat exchangers for air and water preheating. Feed water is
heated and evaporated into subcritical steam through the backpass and the furnace. Superheated steam at 16.7 MPa and 537 C
is expanded in the high-pressure turbine to an intermediate pressure of 3.8 MPa. This IP steam is reheated in the reheaters to 537 C
and is then expanded in the IP steam turbine. Finally, the exhaust
from the IP steam turbine is expanded in the LP (low pressure) turbine to 10 kPa and enters the condenser. The condensate water is
sent to a series of low-pressure feed heaters. The heated water is
sent to a deaerator to remove dissolved gases. Deaerated water is
passed through the high-pressure water heaters and is then fed
to the economizer of the boiler [37].
2.2. Polygeneration plant
To tackle the shortage of oil supply in China, many polygeneration
technologies were designed as liquid fuels-oriented [24,10,11,13
15,17]. Similarly, we established a polygeneration system producing
electricity and liquid fuels simultaneously (Fig. 3). The polygeneration system is based on the facility proposed by Zhejiang University
(cf. Fig. 1).
Lignite is ground, mixed with hot ash from boilers, and pyrolyzed in pyrolyzer 1 and pyrolyzer 2. Pyrolyzed char as well as
ash particles then ows from each pyrolyzer into the corresponding boiler where char combustion occurs. The operating
temperatures of each pyrolyzer and each boiler are 700 C and
900 C, respectively. Flue gas ows out of boilers, through
back-pass heat exchangers, and then into the environment.
Steam generated in the furnace and back-pass is used for
electricity generation. The installed capacity of each set of steam
turbine is 300 MW.

Coal gas, separated from char particles in cyclones, contains tar

aerosols, moisture, particles, as well as sulfuric and nitrogenous
compounds which can block or poison the catalyst in reforming
and synthesis units [38]. Therefore, raw gas has to be processed before its utilization. Raw gas from each pyrolyzer is mixed together
and the mixed stream is cooled down during owing through a
heat recovery unit. After the cooling process, the majority of tar
molecules as well as water-soluble contaminants, such as NH3
and chlorides, are condensed and then removed from the gas.
Tar aerosols are captured in tar trap units (including gas cooling
unit and precipitator), then puried, and collected in tar tanks. Tar
has some chemical and physical defects such as high viscosity,
acidity, and instability, so upgrading processes, such as cracking,
reforming, and hydrogenation are necessary before its application
[39]. Since polygeneration technologies are liquid fuels-oriented,
we prefer to use tar hydrogenation technology to produce oil. A
two-stage tar hydrogenation technology developed by Edwards
et al. [40,41] is adopted. Tar is rstly heated to 150 C and then
pumped into the reactors. Tar is rst hydrotreated in the rst stage
under pressurized hydrogen, using a xed-bed of disposable catalyst of sulded steelwood, and then further upgraded under pressurized hydrogen in the second xed-bed reactor, using nickel/
molybdenum (Ni/Mo) catalyst. Reactors are operated under
13.8 MPa and 420 C. The main characteristics of synthetic crude
oil are: (1) distillate fractions: 20 vol% gasoline, 39 vol% middle distillate, 40 vol% residual oil; (2) specic gravity (15 C/15 C): 0.93;
(3) nitrogen: 0.2 wt%; sulfur: 0.01 wt%; Conradson carbon:
1.8 wt%; carbon aromaticity: 0.39. Feed water is used to carry the
extra heat producing during reactions. The pressure of the gaseous
product is released to approximately atmospheric pressure in a
ash tower. Waste gas is separated in the top of the ash tower
and mixed with raw gas prior to gas cleanup.
Afterwards, a part of gas is sent back to pyrolyzers as the
uidized medium. It has to be emphasized here that the ow rate
of uidized medium depends on the instantaneous bed height of
pyrolyzer and is varying all the time. For simplication, the 50%

1304

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a unit of the CFB power plant.

gas is used as the uidized medium according to the results of a

40 t/h feedrate-scale pyrolyzer. The rest 50% gas is desulfurized
to prevent adverse effect on catalyst downstream. Physical solvents and chemical solvents have been used for H2S removal for
decades. Physical solvents tend to be superior to chemical solvents
for removing high concentration of H2S. In addition, physical solvents have lower energy consumptions than chemical solvents
[42]. Propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (DEPG), N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), and methanol (MeOH)
are the major physical solvents [43]. The Selexol process [44] using
DEPG as solvents has been widely applied for selective H2S removal, and is preferred here. The captured H2S is converted to elemental sulfur in a Claus plant, while clean-up of ash gas is
processed in a SCOT plant [8].
Escaping from Selexol plant, the puried gas ows through a
pressure swing absorption (PSA) unit. In this plant, hydrogen is
abundant in pyrolyzed gas (H2 source) and tar upgrading process
(H2 sink) needs hydrogen. Extracting H2 from pyrolyzed gas to
tar upgrading process enhances the energy integration. PSA is a
mature technology and is widely used in hydrogen plant to separate up to 8590% of high purity (99.999%) hydrogen from coal
gas [8]. Therefore, we use the technology to separate the required
amount of H2 for tar hydrogenation process.
Coal gas has a rather low H/C ratio value but high CH4 content,
therefore, we prefer a methane reformer to a water gas shift reactors ahead of a synthesis tower. There are three main methane
reforming technologies, namely, partial oxidation [45], steam
reforming [46], dry reforming [27]. Considering the high CO2 content in coal gas, dry reforming is preferred. Dry reformer utilizes
CO2 in the gas, and obtains rather high H/C ratio and low CO2 emission. The methane reforming reactor uses a bubbling bed of highly
active Ni/La/a-Al2O3 at about 700800 C [27]. The main equilibrium reactions [27,47] are:

CH4 CO2 2CO 2H2 ;

DR H0298K 247:9 kJ=mol

CO H2 O CO2 H2 ;

DR H0298K 41:16 kJ=mol

Methane reforming is an endothermic process. The required heat is

provided by the combustion of partial synthesis tail gas (see Fig. 3).
The reformed gas can be used for synthesizing liquid fuels, e.g.,
gasoline, diesel, methanol, etc. Methanol, whose octane number
(108.7) is even higher than gasoline, is a promising alternative fuel.
Commercially, there are various available technologies for methanol synthesis [48]. The Lurgi gas phase technology is adopted here.
The reformed gas is rstly cooled down, then compressed to the
reactor pressure, mixed with recycling tail gas, and nally fed into
methanol synthesis reactor where methanol synthesis takes place
over Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst under 6.97 MPa and 180260 C. The
temperature of the synthesis process is kept nearly constant by
transferring heat to the coolant (i.e., water). The main reactions involved in the reactor are as follows [48,49]:

CO2 3H2 CH3 OH H2 O; DR H0298K 49:5 kJ=mol

CO 2H2 CH3 OH; DR H0298K 90:7 kJ=mol

CO2 H2 CO H2 O; DR H0298K 41:16 kJ=mol

The outlet gases from the synthesis reactor is cooled down to

40 C by heating inlet gases and coolant, and then expanded to
1.5 MPa through a ash drum, where ash gas ows out of the
top and crude methanol exits from the bottom and ows into a distillation unit for further purication. The distillation unit includes
three towers, namely, ash tower, light tower, and heavy tower.
The ashed tail gas can be divided into the recycling tail gas, which
is compressed and recycled back to the synthesis reactor, and the
un-recycling tail gas, which is sent to downstream facilities.
The un-recycling tail gas is split into two parts. One part is burnt
with the air in the burner of the methane reformer. The combustion heat of this part of gas is transferred into the methane

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

1305

Fig. 3. Flow diagram of the polygeneration plant.

Table 1
Main properties of XLT lignite.
Ultimate analysis (wt%, ar)

Proximate analysis (wt%, ar)

Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen

Moisture
Ash
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
LHV (MJ/kg, ar)

34.78
2.30
0.88
1.09
11.11

34.79
15.04
27.22
22.95
12.15

reformer. The other part of gas is rstly saturated with steam to

control NOx formation, and then burnt with compressed air in
the combustion chamber of gas turbine [50]. GE 6FA gas turbine
(turbine inlet temperature of 1288 C, expansion ratio of 15.5) is
employed in the paper, which has wide application, including
integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC), cogeneration, simple cycle, and combined cycle [51]. Exhaust gas exiting from gas
turbines ows into a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Part
of feed water is heated and evaporated into high pressure (HP,
12.5 MPa), intermediate pressure (IP, 2 MPa), and low pressure
(LP, 0.24 MPa) steam in the HRSG. Part of feed water is pumped
into tar hydrogenation reactor and methanol synthesis tower.
These reactors transfer released heat to the feed water, and
produce IP steam (cf. steam B and steam from tar hydrogenation
section in Fig. 3). The other part of feed water is pumped to
12.5 MPa, and evaporated into HP steam (cf. steam A in Fig. 3) by
absorbing the sensible heat of raw gas in the heat recovery unit.

HP steam from the HRSG and the heat recovery unit are expanded
in HP steam turbine. The expanded steam from HP turbine is split
into two parts, one is reheated in the HRSG and the other is reheated in the heat recovery unit. After reheated, both parts of
steam mix with other IP steam ows and drive IP and LP turbines
to generate electric energy.
3. Process simulation
This section gives the details of the modeling of main facilities
in each plant mentioned in Section 2. Aspen Plus is selected to
model both plants. This simulation software is a steady state
chemical process simulator and has been widely used in modeling
polygeneration systems [217]. Xiaolongtan (XLT) lignite is selected as the raw material. The typical characteristics of the coal
are reported in Table 1. The details of unit modeling parameters
are presented in Table 2.
3.1. CFB boiler
Comprehensive models of coal combustion in a CFB boiler have
been built in Aspen Plus [53,54]. These models integrating both
hydrodynamic and combustion models have been proved to predict combustion process well. However, these models were rather
complex so that they were time-consuming and heavy computation. To improve computing speed, some researchers neglected

1306

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Table 2
Modeling details in Aspen Plus.
CFB power plant
Grinding
CFB boiler

Crusher modeling the breaking of coal and limestone particles; coal particle size <10 mm, limestone particle size <1 mm
Ryield Yield reactor, modeling coal decomposition by specifying reaction yields, components include H2, O2, C, S, N2, Ash,
H2O. Temperature = 900 C
Rgibbs Chemical equilibria, modeling components combustion, possible products include H2, O2, C, SO2, SO3, N2, NO, NO2,
N2O, Ash, H2O, CO, CO2, assuming ash is inert, carbon conversion = 99.8%, heat loss = 0.4%. Temperature = 900 C
Rstoic Stoichiometric reactor, modeling in-furnace desulfurization process, Reactions: CaCO3(s) = CaO + CO2,
CaO(s)+0.5O2 + SO2 = CaSO4(s), assuming desulfurization efciency = 95%. Temperature = 900 C
Cyclone Cyclone separator, modeling ue gas and y ash separation, assuming separation efciency = 99.5%, cyclone
number = 4, pressure loss = 1%

Back-pass

Heater modeling superheater, reheater, economizer, and air-preheater

Steam cycles

Including HP, IP and LP turbines, 3 HP heaters, 1 deaerator, 4 LP heaters, 2 pumps, and a condenser
Compr modeling HP, IP, and LP turbines; Isentropic efciency = 0.90, Mechanical efciency = 0.98. Inlet pressure:
HP turbine = 16.7 MPa, IP turbine = 3.42 MPa, LP turbine = 0.75 MPa; exhaust pressure = 10 kPa
Heater modeling HP heaters, LP heaters, condenser, pressure loss = 1%, feed water temperature = 279 C
Flash2 modeling deaerator

Pumps

Pump modeling pumps, global efciency = 0.8, discharge pressure: condenser pump = 1.72 MPa, feed water
pump = 20.5 MPa

Fans

Pump modeling primary air fan, secondary air fan, induced draft fan; global efciency = 0.8, pressure increase: primary air
fan = 30.2 kPa, secondary air fan = 1.46 kPa, induced draft fan = 7.8 kPa, primary air/secondary air = 6:4

Polygeneration plant
Grinding, CFB boiler, Back-pass, Steam
cycle, Fans, Pumps
Pyrolyzer

Heat recovery unit

Tar trap unit
Tar hydrogenation
Selexol plant
Claus/SCOT plant
PSA
Reformer

Burner
Synthesis tower
Methanol distillation section

Gas turbine

HRSG and steam cycle

The same as CFB power plant

Ryield Yield reactor, modeling lignite pyrolysis by known products yield. Products includes: H2, CO, CO2, CH4, H2O, Char,
H2S, NH3, C2H4, and Tar
Tar is represented by ve model compounds: phenol, hexadecane, quinoline, naphthalene, and dibenzothiophene.
Temperature = 700 C
Heater modeling gas cooling process, pressure loss = 1%
Sep separating inlet streams, assuming tar separation efciency = 100%
Ryield Yield reactor, possible products: oil, CH4, C2H6, C3H8, C4H10, Coke, H2O, CO, CO2, NH3, H2S. Temperature = 420 C,
pressure = 13.8 MPa
Sep separating gas into acid gas, ash gas, and clean gas; pressure: acid gas 0.1 MPa, ash gas 0.69 MPa, clean gas
3.11 MPa; assumption: H2S absorption efciency = 99%
Rstoic Stoichiometric reactor, main reactions: H2S + 1.5O2 = SO2 + H2O, 2H2S + SO2 = 2H2O + 3S(s),
SO2 + 3H2 = H2S + 2H2O, 2H2S + O2 = 2S(s)+2H2O
Sep assuming H2 separation efciency = 8590%, purity = 99.999%
Rplug Plug ow reactor, LHHW kinetic expression, main reactions: CH4 + CO2 = 2CO + 2H2, CO + H2O = CO2 + H2
Length: 7.8 m, Diameter: 4 m, Adjusting tube numbers to achieve 0.1 m/s gas velocity, catalyst loading 1512 tonne
according to contact time of 31.8 g s ml1 [27]
Rgibbs chemical equilibria, modeling gas combustion
Rplug Plug ow reactor, LHHW kinetic expression, main reactions: CO2 + 3H2 = CH3OH + H2O, CO2 + H2 = CO + H2O
Diameter: 0.04 m, Length: 7 m, tube numbers: 3240 [52]
Flash2 phase equilibrium, modeling ash drum, ash pressure = 0.15 MPa
Radfrac multistage vaporliquid fractionation, modeling methanol distillation process. Three towers adopted: ash
tower, light tower, and heavy tower
Methanol purity = 99.85%
Compr modeling air compressors and gas turbines
Isentropic efciency: compressor = 0.80, turbines = 0.922
Mechanical efciency: compressor = 0.98, turbines = 0.98
Rgibbs modeling gas combustion in combustion chamber, adjusting air ow rate to achieve TIT = 1288 C
Heater modeling HP heat exchanger, IP heat exchanger, LP heat exchanger, economizer, and reheater, assuming pinch
temperature = 10 C, approach temperature = 10 C, ue gas temperature = 130 C. Inlet pressure: HP turbine = 12.5 MPa, IP
turbine = 2 MPa, LP turbine = 0.24 MPa, exhaust pressure = 4.6 kPa, steam turbine: isentropic efciency = 0.90, mechanical
efciency = 0.98

the hydrodynamic complexity of CFB boiler, and established a

much simpler model [55]. Their results indicated that the simple
model can also accurately predict coal combustion in a boiler.
Therefore, we adopt this model to simulate a CFB boiler. Coal, char,
and ash are considered as nonconventional components, and characterized by their ultimate and proximate analyses. Ryield, Rgibbs,
and Rstoic models are applied to simulate coal decomposition, char
and volatile combustion and in-furnace desulfurization processes
in the CFB boiler, respectively. Cyclone modules are used to model
gas solid separation in cyclones with designed separation efciency. The details of CFB boiler models can be seen in Table 2.
3.2. Pyrolyzer
Coal pyrolysis is a complex process and heavily depends on coal
type, operating conditions and pyrolysis devices. Many researchers

proposed different models to calculate pyrolysis process, e.g. CPD

[56], DAEM [57], FG-DVC [58], FlashChain [59], etc. However, most
models were linked to coal microscope structure parameters and
too complex to utilize for a wide range of coal. Maffei et al. [60
62] proposed multi-step models to simulate the pyrolysis process
easily and accurately only by elemental analysis. Here, the multistep models are used to predict the pyrolysis of XLT lignite via
Chemkin software. Since the composition of tar is very complex,
tar is generally assumed to be a simple hydrocarbon CmHn, such
as C14H10 [63]. However, this method is inaccurate to evaluate
the property of coal tar only by one compound. To better represent
the characteristics of tar, we choose ve different model compounds, i.e., phenol, hexadecane, quinoline, naphthalene, and
dibenzothiophene. A pyrolyzer is simulated using Ryield reactor
model in Aspen Plus. The simulated pyrolysis results of Chemkin
software is input into the model as product yield. Since the

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

combination of a boiler and a pyrolyzer is a dual-furnace design, it

is difcult to achieve convergence for circulating solid particles between two furnaces. To solve this problem, we disconnect the ash
stream from the boiler to the pyrolyzer, and introduce a heat ow
from models of CFB boiler to the pyrolyzer instead.

3.3. Gas conditioning

Gas cooling unit is simply modeled using Heater block in Aspen
Plus, and tar capture process is simulated by Sep model, assuming
100% tar is captured. Coal gas from the pyrolyzer is under atmospheric pressure, coal gas has to be pressurized before entering Selexol plant. Since Selexol plant is a complex process, it is always
simply modeled with a Sep block in Aspen Plus [50,64]. Sep block
splits the coal gas into three streams, namely, clean gas, acid gas,
and ash gas (cf. Table 2). Clean gas, is H2S-free and has almost
the same pressure as the pressurized coal gas. Acid gas, which is
rich in H2S, is vented into Claus plant model. Flash gas has a medium pressure, is sent into SCOT plant. Claus, and SCOT plants adopt
models in the literature [50]. Similar to Selexol process, PSA unit is
also simply simulated using Sep block, assuming that H2 of
99.95 mol% purity is separated [65].
Methane reforming process is controlled by kinetics. Plug reactor (Rplug) module is used to simulate the reformer. Kinetic models of methane reforming adopts LangmuirHinshelwood reaction
rates expressions [27,47]. Rates coefcients are taken from Wurzel
et al. [47]. The burner which combusts gases to provide the reformer external heat resource is simulated using a chemical equilibria
reactor model (Rgibbs).

3.4. Tar hydrogenation

Since the detailed kinetic mechanism of tar hydrogenation processes is unclear so far, it is difcult to exactly predict the hydrogenation process by kinetics. Yield reactor module (Ryield) is used to
simulate hydrogenation process by inputting Edwards et al.s
experimental results [40] into the reactor as the yields distribution.
Pump and Mcompr modules simulate tar and hydrogen compression processes, respectively.

3.5. Methanol synthesis

Rplug model is used to simulate Lurgi synthesis technology, calculating with LangmuirHinshelwoodHougenWatson (LHHW)
kinetics [52]. Flash towers are simply simulated with vaporliquid
separator module (Flash2), and distillation towers are modeled
using RadFrac column [3]. Column conditions are adjusted to recover methanol at the required purity (99.85%).

3.6. Gas turbine combined cycle

Gas combustion with air in the combustion chamber is simulated with chemical equilibria reactor module (Rgibbs). The air
supply is adjusted to make the turbine inlet temperature (TIT)
reach the set value 1288 C. Compr blocks are applied to simulate
the air compressor and gas turbine. Blades in each stage of gas turbine are cooled by splitting air from different stages of air compressor. HRSG is modeled by a series of Heater units. Generally, the
pinch temperature rage is from 8 to 20 C, and the approach temperature range from 5 to 20 C. So we set the pinch temperature
and the approach temperature as 10 C. Steam turbine is modeled
using compressor and expander module (Compr). Details can be
found in Table 2.

1307

3.7. Additional information

Peng Robinson cubic equation of state with the Boston-Mathias
alpha function (PR-BM) physical property method is used in coal
and gas processing units, including combustion, pyrolysis, PSA,
reforming, gas turbine, and Selexol/Claus plant. The Soave
RedlichKwong cubic equation of state (SRK) physical property
method is used in high pressure reactors, such as methanol synthesis tower and tar hydrogenation reactor. STEAM-TA, which uses
ASME 1967 steam tables, is used to calculate all thermodynamic
properties for pure water and steam, and is applied to pumps,
steam turbines, and steam side of heat exchangers.
4. Methodology
The present section describes a thermodynamic and economicbased analysis approach that we use to evaluate the feasibility of
polygeneration plant. The schematic of the analysis approach is
shown in Fig. 4. It includes four main layers: (1) Optimize operating conditions of some facilities, nd the optimal conditions; (2)
calculate the thermodynamic performance of optimum design,
and compare it with that of CFB power plant; (3) calculate the economic performance of optimum design, and compare it with that
of CFB power plant; (4) analyze the price factors that inuence
the economic performance.
4.1. Optimization method
Optimization process adopts simple variable method (cf. Fig. 4).
Briey, vary only one parameter and x other parameter values
each time till to nd an optimal value to replace its initial value.
Then, vary the second parameter and nd its optimal value to take
the place of the initial one. Take the same method for the rest
parameters till all parameters have been optimized.
4.2. Thermodynamic evaluation criteria
Energy efciency and exergy efciency are generally used to
evaluate thermodynamic performance of a polygeneration plant
[2,3,10,11,66,67]. Energy efciency, based on the rst law of thermodynamics, is the conversion efciency of coal energy to the desired energy in a system. Exergy is the maximum work that can be
obtained from the system, when its state is brought to the reference or dead state (standard atmospheric conditions). Exergy
efciency calculates conversion efciency of the exergy in a system
according the second law of thermodynamics. In the polygeneration system, the output is oil, methanol, and electricity, and the input is lignite coal. Therefore, the calculations of overall energy and
exergy efciencies of the system are dened as

F MeOH CV MeOH W Electricity F Oil CV Oil

F Coal CV Coal

EX MeOH EX Electricity EX Oil

;
EX Coal

and

where g and e denote the overall energy efciency and exergy efciency of the polygeneration system, respectively. FMeOH, FOil, and
FCoal denote the ow rate of methanol, oil, and coal, respectively.
CVMeOH, CVOil, and CVCoal represent the caloric heat of methanol,
oil, and coal, respectively. WElectricity, EXMeOH, EXElectricity, EXOil, and
EXCoal represent the electricity energy and exergy of methanol, electricity, oil, and coal, respectively. The calculation of fuels exergy can
be found elsewhere [68].

1308

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Fig. 4. Feasibility analysis methodology.

4.3. Economic evaluation criteria

4.3.1. Fixed capital investment (FCI) calculation method
The xed capital investment (FCI) can be estimated by scaling
up method [44], which can be expressed by

"
 bj #
m
m
X
X
Sj
FCI
Cj
Aj  F j  Ir;j 
Sr;j
j0
j0

where Cj, Aj, Fj, Sj, and bj denote capital investment, domestic factor,
installation factor, scale, and scale factor of facility j in the present
scale, respectively. m is the total number of facilities. Ir,j and Sr,j represent purchase cost and scale of facility j in the reference scale,
respectively. Aj is equal to the ratio of the price of domestic produced equipment to that of fully imported equipment. Since our
study is based on energy market of China, we consider domestic factor of China. Facilities in China are much cheaper than those in
America or Euro. Here, we take domestic factor as 0.65. The capital
cost data of facilities with basic scale can be found elsewhere, which
are illustrated in Table 3. Prices are based on different currencies in
different year, so all capital costs are updated to costs of the year
2011 in million dollars (106 $ for short) to calculate on the same

basis according to cost indexes method, which is based on Marshall

& Swift equipment cost index [67]. The yearly Chinese Yuan/US dollar and Euro/US dollar exchange rates of 2011 are 0.1548 and
1.3936, respectively [69].
4.3.2. Internal rate of return (IRR)
IRR is commonly used as an economic criterion to evaluate the
feasibility of a project [3]. The calculation of IRR is according to the
following equation [3]:
n
X
C t 1 IRRt 0

t0

where Ct denotes the annual cash ow of the year t. n represents

plant lifetime. The annual cash ow can be calculated as follows [4]:

C t C p  FCI  CRF  1a O&M C F C M

10

where Cp, CF, and CM denote annual product sales income, fuel cost,
and material cost, respectively. FCI represents xed capital
investment, while O&M denotes the ratio of annual operating and
management cost to FCI. a is the interest rate during construction.

Table 3
Basic capital cost data of facilities.
Component
a

CFB power plant

Fluidized bed pyrolyzer and gas cleanup unitb
Heat exchangerc
H2 PSAc
Selexold
Claus/SCOTd
Gas turbined
Steam turbine and cyclec
HRSGc
Synthesis reactorc
Methanol upgradingc
Methane reformere
Coal gas compressorc
Pumpe
Tar hydrogenationb
a

Basic cost (106 $)

Basic scale

Scaling factor

Scale unit

Overall installation factor

268.733
27.864
13.138
17.519
46.195
31.485
114.114
55.474
49.635
3.927
1.907
0.249
5.839
0.020
2.322

300
1196.91
138
16 616
81
81
276
275
355
25.25
25.25
0.021
10
250
200000

0.74
0.7
0.6
0.65
0.67
0.67
0.75
0.67
1
0.6
0.65
0.75
1
0.14
0.7

MW
GJ/h input
MWth
H2 kmol/h
t-sulfur input/day
t-sulfur input/day
net MW
gross MW
MWth exchanged
t-methanol/h
t-methanol/h
m3/s CO2
MW
m3/h
t-crude oil/y

1.995
2.56

1.4732
1.4732

1.5312
1.995
1.995

Static investments of 300 MW CFB power plant built in China are taken [70].
Costs are taken from feasibility study reports of chemical engineering projects in China [71]. Specically, cost of pyrolyzer and gas cleanup unit including cyclones, gas
cooling and purifying unit is according to the feasibility study report of the 40t/h feedrate polygeneration plant.
c
The costs data of facilities unless otherwise specied are from Meerman et al. [72], the default installation factor is considered as 1.995. The symbol in the installation
factor item means the capital cost includes installation cost.
d
Costs are based on Kreutz [9], assuming the capital cost per MW of GE 6FA gas turbine close to that of GE 7H gas turbine.
e
Cost data of methane reformers and pumps are according to Xue [73] and Huijgen et al. [74], respectively.
b

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

CRF means the ratio of annual average investment, and can be calculated with discount rate (i) and plant lifetime [3,66]:

11

4.3.3. Payback period

Additionally, payback period is taken to evaluate the time required for the return of total investment, including two methods,
i.e., simple payback period (SPP) and discounted payback period
(DPP). DPP considers the effect of discount rate during plant lifetime. Specically, DPP can be calculated as follows:

PA

t0 Bt 1

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Evaluation of the pyrolyzer model

i
CRF
n
1  1 i

DPP A

1309

t

12

where A denotes last period with a negative cumulative cash ow,

and Bt represents the net cash ow in year t. C means the annual
net cash ow during the next period after A.

The results calculated by multi-step pyrolysis models are compared with our experimental results. The experiment was carried
out on a 40 t/h XLT lignite-fueled pyrolyzer. The pyrolyzer was
operated at 700 C and uidized by circulating gas. All parameters
in the experiment are the same with those used in our modeling
except that the scale of our model is larger than the experiments
scale. The comparison between modeling data and experimental
results is shown in Fig. 5 (left column: experimental, right column:
modeling). Obviously, modeling and experimental results show
fairly good agreement. Furthermore, according to the heat balance,
we can evaluate the required circulating ash amount, which is
approximately 2389.5 t/h. According to our knowledge of
300 MW scale CFB boiler, this value can be achieved by conventional operation of CFB boiler. Therefore, these models can be used
in our study.

5.2. Operation parameters optimization

Prior to the optimization process, initial values of operation
parameters are given: (1) methane reforming temperature:
900 C; (2) methanol synthesis temperature: 230 C; (3) recycling
ratio of synthesis tail gas (r): 0.

Fig. 5. Comparison of modeling and experimental pyrolysis results (left column:

experiment, right column: simulation).

5.2.1. The temperature of reforming unit

Fig. 6 demonstrates the inuence of reforming temperature.
Clearly, g rises with reforming temperature until 800 C and thereafter it seems to stabilize. This is related to the approaching of the
equilibrium state of the methane reforming reactions when temperature reaches 800 C [2]. With the increase of reforming temperature, methanol yield continuously increases and reaches
approximately 13.5 kg/s at 800 C. Further increasing of reforming
temperature affects little methanol production, due to reaching the
equilibrium of reforming reactions. Net power generation shows
concave trends and bottoms out at 800900 C. This is because a
large quantity of gases is converted to methanol in 800 C. Overall,
800 C is the optimal value of reforming temperature.

Fig. 6. Effects of methane reforming temperature.

1310

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

Fig. 7. Effects of methanol synthesis temperature.

Fig. 8. Effects of recycling tail gas ratio.

5.2.2. The temperature of synthesis unit

As seen in Fig. 7, synthesis temperature has great inuence on
methanol yield, which peaks at about 14 kg/s under the temperature of 210 C. Increasing temperature improves the reaction rate.
However, since the reactions are exothermic, lower temperature favors the equilibrium shifting rightward and thus an upward trend
appears at a low temperature. When temperature rises, a decreasing tendency arises. The up-down trends are similar with Chen
et al. [52] On the other hand, power generation decreases with synthesis temperature until 210 C and thereafter it increases steadily.
We can clearly see that system efciency reaches their peaks at
210 C. Hence, 210 C is the optimal synthesis temperature.
5.2.3. Recycling tail gas ratio
Fig. 8 displays the inuence of recycling ratio of the tail gas on
system performance. Total methanol yield increases linearly from
ca. 14.4 kg/s at the recycling ratio of 0% to ca. 17.5 kg/s at 80%.
More tail gas recycling into the reactor will facilitate methanol production. With the increase of recycling ratio from 0% to 60%, a tendency of increase for exergy efciency can be observed. However,
exergy efciency is gradually lower with higher recycling ratio
afterwards. This is referred to the result from a sharp decrease of

electricity generation. Consequently, 60% is the desirable faction

of recycling tail gas.
Based on the optimization, optimal system parameters are
found: (1) reforming temperature: 800 C, (2) synthesis temperature: 210 C, (3) recycling tail gas ratio: 60%. Simulation data of
main streams in the proposed polygeneration plant are listed in
Table 4.
The thermodynamic characteristics of the optimum design of
polygeneration plant are compared with those of conventional
2  300 MW CFB power plant, and summarized in Table 5. It
should be emphasized here that CFB boilers in both plants are
in the full load condition to ensure 600 MW power generating
capacity in boilers side. Only about 40% of lignite is converted into
char (to be re in boilers), and the results cause a much larger lignite feed rate (239.50 kg/s) in the polygeneration plant comparing
with conventional power plant (143.16 kg/s). The increase of lignite in the polygeneration plant is efciently converted into extra
power (172.16 MW), methanol (16.86 kg/s), and oil (2.95 kg/s).
With the help of cascade energy utilization and heat integration,
polygeneration plant shows higher energy and exergy efciency
(43.2% and 43.24%) than conventional CFB power plant (34.9%
and 34.2%).

1311

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

5.3. Economic analysis

Table 4
Simulation data of main streams.
Stream in Fig.

Temperature,
C
Pressure, bar
Mole ow,
kmol/s

130

700

37.8

37.8

30.9

800

210

580.6

1.10
32.19

1.00
10.02

31.10
2.87

31.0
2.652

1.01
2.178

1.01
2.58

66.70
2.27

1.05
6.296

0.0000
0.0305
0.7796
0.0277
0.1619
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.2437
0.0000
0.0000
0.4788
0.1141
0.0814
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0130
0.0426
0.0123
0.0100
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0036
0.0000

0.5014
0.0001
0.0000
0.0327
0.2024
0.1444
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0231
0.0764
0.0000
0.0180
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000

0.5423
0.0001
0.0000
0.0212
0.1758
0.1550
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0250
0.0792
0.0000
0.0000
0.0007
0.0004
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000

0.4378
0.0002
0.0000
0.0259
0.2147
0.1893
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0305
0.0968
0.0000
0.0000
0.0008
0.0005
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000

0.4745
0.0000
0.0000
0.0766
0.0455
0.3750
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0257
0.0011
0.0000
0.0000
0.0007
0.0004
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000

0.1126
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.1114
0.4468
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0668
0.0030
0.0000
0.0000
0.0018
0.0010
0.0005
0.0000
0.2557

0.0000
0.1340
0.6968
0.1031
0.0651
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

Mole fraction
H2
O2
N2
H2O
CO2
CO
SO2
SO3
NO2
NO
N2O
C2H4
CH4
NH3
H2S
C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
Tar
MeOH

Table 5
Thermodynamic performances of CFB power plant and polygeneration plant.

5.3.1. Basic evaluation

The assumptions of basic economic data are listed in Table 6.
Crude oil and methanol prices are dependent on the political factor
and regional situation and uctuate over years. Chinas average import price of crude oil in 2011, and the average prices of methanol,
limestone, sulfur, electricity, and water are preferred in the basic
case.

Table 6
Basic assumptions and prices for economic calculation.
Items
Plant economic lifetime

Facility available days per year

O&Ma
Discount ratea
Overall interest rate during
constructionb
Construction period

Value

Price

Value

30 years

XLT
lignite
Water
Electricity

38.7 $/t

300
4.0% of the
capital cost
8%
9.8%
3 years

Crude oil
Methanolc

0.310 $/t
0.056 $/
kW h
774 $/t
417.96 $/t

Limestone
Sulfur

2.121 $/t
263.16 $/t

a
Plant economic lifetime, O&M, and discount rate are according to literature
[66].
b
Taken from literature data [4].
c
Methanol price is according to the average value reported by Yang[75].

Table 7
Comparisons of economic results.

Polygeneration
plant

Items

143.16
1739.39
1776.66

239.50
2909.93
2972.12

Fuel and material consumption (million tonne/year)

Coal
3.71
Water
10.97
Limestone
0.22

6.21
15.68
0.16

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
649.73
0.00

16.86
2.95
349.50
377.56
127.76
127.70
649.73
66.16

Product (tonne/year)
Sulfur
Methanol (99.85% purity)
Crude oil
Electricity (kW h/year)

0.00
0.00
0.00
4.38  109

41,741.36
437,025.16
76,412.16
5.62  109

0.00

180.93

Auxiliary power consumption

Grinding (MW)
Tar pump (kW)
GTCC steam cycle pumps (MW)
Boiler side steam cycle pumps (MW)
Primary air fan (MW)
Secondary air fan (MW)
Induced draft fan (MW)
Circulating gas fan (MW)
Gas compressor before Selexol (MW)
Gas compressor after reformer (MW)
Hydrogen compressor (MW)
Recycling tail gas compressor (MW)
Claus compressors (MW)
Total consumption (MW)

0.04
0.00
0.00
15.59
14.13
0.46
11.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.93

0.07
64.54
1.31
15.58
17.54
0.56
10.12
1.78
31.72
17.8
2.26
17.54
1.01
117.35

Summary
Net power output (MW)
Total energy output (MW)
Total exergy output (MW)
System energy efciency (%)
System exergy efciency (%)

607.80
607.80
607.80
34.9
34.2

779.96
1257.22
1294.36
43.20
43.24

Energy input
Coal input (kg/s)
Coal energy input (MW)
Coal exergy input (MW)
Energy output
Methanol yields (kg/s)
Oil yields (kg/s)
Methanol energy output (MW)
Methanol exergy output (MW)
Oil energy output (MW)
Oil exergy output (MW)
Power generation in boiler side (MW)
Power generation in gas turbine
(MW)
Power generation in steam turbine
(MW)

CFB
power
plant

Polygeneration
plant

CFB power
plant

Items

Capital cost (106 $)

Coal power plant(including boilers, steam
turbines, fans, grinding and other facilities)
Fluidized bed pyrolyzer and gas cleanup
Heat exchanger
H2 PSA
Selexol
Claus/SCOT
Gas turbine
Steam turbine and cycle
HRSG
Methanol reactor
Product upgrading
Methane reformer
Coal gas compressors
Pumps
Tar hydrogenation
Fixed capital cost
Interest during installation
Total capital cost
O&M (106 $/year)

542.63

541.42

542.63
53.18
595.81
21.71

63.89
27.78
12.63
43.49
29.64
28.06
40.16
15.49
7.18
3.66
19.28
21.85
0.07
2.36
856.97
83.98
940.95
34.28

Summary
Material and fuel cost (106 $/year)
Annual output value (106 $/year)
Annual prot (106 $/year)
IRR (%)
SPP (years)
DPP (years)

147.48
243.88
74.69
10.63
9.98
14.49

245.44
565.74
286.02
24.07
5.29
6.36

1312

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

According to the economic evaluation method (cf. Section 4),

the basic economic features of both plants are evaluated and
shown in Table 7. Higher total capital cost for polygeneration plant
(940.95  106 $) compared with CFB power plant should be attributed to the extra facilities in polygeneration plant. It is obvious that
pyrolyzers, gas clean-up and tar utilization facilities account for
only 36% of the total xed capital cost of the polygeneration plant.
Boilers and the conventional power generation unit entail major
investment for building a polygeneration plant. In other words, it
would not cost too much if we establish a polygeneration plant
based on an existing CFB power plant. On the other hand, the annual prot of polygeneration plant quadruples that of CFB power
plant. Furthermore, IRR values for both plants are higher than discount rate, suggesting their feasibility. The IRR value of polygeneration plant is nearly 14% points higher than that of CFB power
plant. Meanwhile, polygeneration plant cuts down approximately
8 years of the DPP value compared with the CFB power plant.
Comparing the DPP with the SPP, it can be noticed that discount
rate has triing impact on the polygeneration plant while discount
rate substantially prolongs the period of investment return of CFB
power plant. Overall, at the present market condition, building a
polygeneration plant is much attractive to the government and
investors.
5.3.2. Price factor analysis
The economic situation of a plant is always changing since
prices of fuel, material, and products uctuate in the market economy. The inuences of coal price, methanol price, oil price, and

electricity price are shown in Fig. 9. The abscissas refer to the

prices, and the ordinates are the difference between the IRR of
polygeneration plant and CFB power plant (DIRR). The DIRR increases with the rise in prices of coal, methanol, and oil, but shows
a decrease with the decrease of electricity price. When coal price
becomes larger than 50$/t, the CFB power plant will encounter
poor economy. Therefore, the upper bound of coal price is no more
than 50$/t. The results show that the IRR difference is getting larger with the increase of coal price, which means that higher coal
price makes polygeneration plant more feasible than CFB power
plant. Also, the DIRR is proportional to the prices of methanol
and oil. The phenomena are because methanol and oil are only
produced in the polygeneration plant. The prices rise increases
the annual prots of the polygeneration plant, but CFB power plant
does not benet from the rise. It is interesting to note that increasing electricity price from 0.04$/kW h to 0.16$/kW h makes the
DIRR drop from 17% to 2%. The DIRR tends to be narrowed by
increasing electricity price from 0.04$/kW h to 0.16$/kW h. We
easily expect that DIRR will approach zero and even enter the
minus zone when electricity price keeps growing. This is related
to the fact that the protability of a power plant relies heavily
on the price of its only product, electricity. When electricity becomes expensive, the power plant will benet more than the polygeneration plant. Furthermore, we can easily nd the order of
price factors effects: electricity > methanol > oil > coal. The results
also reveal that polygeneration plant shows a higher IRR value
than CFB power plant even when they are subject to substantial
price uctuations.

Fig. 9. Effects of prices on economic feature.

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

4. Conclusions
This paper presents a new coal-based polygeneration system
co-producing methanol, oil, and electricity by integrating a
2  300 MW CFB power plant with atmospheric pressure uidized
bed pyrolyzers. Detailed steady state models for polygeneration
plant and CFB power plant are separately established. The optimum design of the polygeneration plant is found by optimizing
operating parameters, and its thermodynamic and economic performances are compared with those of the CFB power plant. It is
found that polygeneration plant with higher energy and exergy
efciency is more efcient than CFB power plant. Polygeneration
plant, which has larger IRR (24.07%) and shorter DPP (6.36 years)
and SPP (5.29 years), shows more protable than CFB power plant
at the present prices. Price uctuations have great inuence on the
economic condition of the polygeneration plant. The results of
price factor analysis show that the rises of coal, oil, and methanol
prices sharpen the competitive edge of the polygeneration plant,
while electricity price rise weakens its competitiveness. The results
also indicate that the polygeneration plant has a good economic
feature within a wide range of price uctuations. Overall, the
polygeneration system proposed in this paper is an efcient and
economic technology.
Acknowledgements
We would like to gratefully acknowledge the support from the
National High Technology Research & Development Program of
China (No. 20136AA051203) and the collaboration project of
CERC-ACTC (2010DFA72730-201) and Program for New Century
Excellent Talents in University (NCET-09-0696).
References
[1] Department of Energy Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics, Peoples
Republic of China. China energy statistical yearbook 2011. Beijing: China
Statistics Press; 2011.
[2] Yi Q, Feng J, Li WY. Optimization and efciency analysis of polygeneration
system with coke-oven gas and coal gasied gas by Aspen Plus. Fuel
2012;96:13140.
[3] Yi Q, Lu B, Feng J, Wu Y, Li W. Evaluation of newly designed polygeneration
system with CO2 recycle. Energy Fuels 2012;26:145969.
[4] Lin H, Jin H, Gao L, Han W. Techno-economic evaluation of coal-based
polygeneration systems of synthetic fuel and power with CO2 recovery. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:27483.
[5] Liu P, Georgiadis MC, Pistikopoulos EN. Advances in energy systems
engineering. Ind Eng Chem Res 2010;50:491526.
[6] Liu P, Pistikopoulos EN, Li Z. A multi-objective optimization approach to
polygeneration energy systems design. AIChE J 2010;56:121834.
[7] Liu P, Gerogiorgis DI, Pistikopoulos EN. Modeling and optimization of
polygeneration energy systems. Catal Today 2007;127:34759.
[8] Chiesa P, Consonni S, Kreutz T, Williams R. Co-production of hydrogen,
electricity and CO2 from coal with commercially ready technology. Part A:
performance and emissions. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:74767.
[9] Kreutz T, Williams R, Consonni S, Chiesa P. Co-production of hydrogen,
electricity and CO2 from coal with commercially ready technology. Part B:
economic analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:76984.
[10] Yu G, Xu Y, Hao X, Li Y, Liu G. Process analysis for polygeneration of Fischer
Tropsch liquids and power with CO2 capture based on coal gasication. Fuel
2010;89:10706.
[11] Zhou L, Hu S, Li Y, Zhou Q. Study on co-feed and co-production system based
on coal and natural gas for producing DME and electricity. Chem Eng J
2008;136:3140.
[12] Normann F, Thunman H, Johnsson F. Process analysis of an oxygen lean oxyfuel power plant with co-production of synthesis gas. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50:27986.
[13] Li H, Hong H, Jin H, Cai R. Analysis of a feasible polygeneration system for
power and methanol production taking natural gas and biomass as materials.
Appl Energy 2010;87:284653.
[14] Qian Y, Liu J, Huang Z, Kraslawski A, Cui J, Huang Y. Conceptual design and
system analysis of a poly-generation system for power and olen production
from natural gas. Appl Energy 2009;86:208895.
[15] Pellegrini LA, Soave G, Gamba S, Lang S. Economic analysis of a combined
energymethanol production plant. Appl Energy 2011;88:48917.

1313

[16] Liu G-j, Li Z, Wang M-h, Ni W-d. Energy savings by co-production: a methanol/
electricity case study. Appl Energy 2010;87:28549.
[17] Gao L, Li H, Chen B, Jin H, Lin R, Hong H. Proposal of a natural gas-based
polygeneration system for power and methanol production. Energy
2008;33:20612.
[18] Zhang J, Zhao Z, Zhang G, Xi Z, Zhao F, Dong L, et al. Pilot study on jetting preoxidation uidized bed gasication adapting to caking coal. Appl Energy
2013;110:27684.
[19] Ngo SI, Nguyen TDB, Lim Y-I, Song B-H, Lee U-D, Choi Y-T, et al. Performance
evaluation for dual circulating uidized-bed steam gasier of biomass using
quasi-equilibrium
three-stage
gasication
model.
Appl
Energy
2011;88:520820.
[20] Cordiner S, De Simone G, Mulone V. Experimentalnumerical design of a
biomass bubbling uidized bed gasier for paper sludge energy recovery. Appl
Energy 2012;97:53242.
[21] Link S, Arvelakis S, Paist A, Martin A, Liliedahl T, Sjstrm K. Atmospheric
uidized bed gasication of untreated and leached olive residue, and cogasication of olive residue, reed, pine pellets and Douglas r wood chips. Appl
Energy 2012;94:8997.
[22] Kim YD, Yang CW, Kim BJ, Kim KS, Lee JW, Moon JH, et al. Air-blown
gasication of woody biomass in a bubbling uidized bed gasier. Appl Energy
2013.
[23] Boateng AA, Daugaard DE, Goldberg NM, Hicks KB. Bench-scale uidized-bed
pyrolysis of switchgrass for bio-oil production. Ind Eng Chem Res
2007;46:18917.
[24] Tyler RJ. Flash pyrolysis of coals. 1. Devolatilization of a Victorian brown coal
in a small uidized-bed reactor. Fuel 1979;58:6806.
[25] Stiles HN, Kandiyoti R. Secondary reactions of ash pyrolysis tars measured in
a uidized bed pyrolysis reactor with some novel design features. Fuel
1989;68:27582.
[26] Kato K, Wen CY. Bubble assemblage model for uidized bed catalytic reactors.
Chem Eng Sci 1969;24:135169.
[27] Olsbye U, Wurzel T, Mleczko L. Kinetic and reaction engineering studies of dry
reforming of methane over a Ni/La/Al2O3 catalyst. Ind Eng Chem Res
1997;36:51808.
[28] Basu P. Combustion of coal in circulating uidized-bed boilers: a review. Chem
Eng Sci 1999;54:554757.
[29] Yue G, Yang H, Lu J, Zhang H. Latest development of CFB boilers in China. In:
Proceedings of the 20th international conference on uidized bed
combustion. Xian, China: Springer; 2010. p. 312.
[30] Duan L, Liu D, Chen X, Zhao C. Fly ash recirculation by bottom feeding on a
circulating uidized bed boiler co-burning coal sludge and coal. Appl Energy
2012;95:2959.
[31] Liukkonen M, Hlikk E, Hiltunen T, Hiltunen Y. Dynamic soft sensors for NOx
emissions in a circulating uidized bed boiler. Appl Energy 2012;97:48390.
[32] Wu Y, Wang C, Tan Y, Jia L, Anthony EJ. Characterization of ashes from a
100kWth pilot-scale circulating uidized bed with oxy-fuel combustion. Appl
Energy 2011;88:29408.
[33] Fang MX, Luo ZY, Li XT, Wang QH, Ni MJ, Cen KF. A multi-product cogeneration
system using combined coal gasication and combustion. Energy
1998;23:20312.
[34] Wang Q, Luo Z, Fang M, Ni M, Cen K. Design of a 12 MW tri-cogeneration
system of gas, heat and power. In: Donald WG, Geiling PE, editors. Proceedings
of the 16th international conference on uidized bed combustion. Reno,
Nevada: ASME; 2001. p. 2001.
[35] Wang Q, Luo Z, Fang M, Ni M, Cen K. Development of a 12 MW multigeneration of gas, steam and power. J Fuel Chem Technol 2002;30:1416.
[36] Fang M, Cen J, Wang Q, Shi Z, Luo Z, Cen K. 25 MW circulating uidized
bed heat-power-coal gas poly-generation installation. J Power Eng
2007;27:6359.
[37] Lv G, Wang H, Ma W, Yu C. Energy and exergy analysis for 300MW thermal
system of Xiaolongtan power plant. In: International conference on computer
distributed control and intelligent environmental monitoring (CDCIEM); 2011.
p. 1804.
[38] Bartholomew CH. Mechanisms of catalyst deactivation. Appl Catal A
2001;212:1760.
[39] Li CS, Suzuki K. Resources, properties and utilization of tar. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2010;54:90515.
[40] Edwards JH, Schluter K, Tyler RJ. Upgrading of ash pyrolysis tars to synthetic
crude oil: 2. Second-stage hydrotreatment using nickel/molybdenum
catalysts. Fuel 1986;65:2027.
[41] Edwards JH, Schluter K, Tyler RJ. Upgrading of ash pyrolysis tars to synthetic
crude oil: 1. First stage hydrotreatment using a disposable catalyst. Fuel
1985;64:5949.
[42] Kohl AL, Nielsen R. Gas purication. Gulf Professional Publishing; 1997.
[43] Burr B, Lyddon L. A comparison of physical solvents for acid gas removal. Gas
Processors Association Convention, Grapevine, TX2008.
[44] Sweny J. Synthetic fuel gas purication by the SELEXOL process. Prepr Am
Chem Soc Div Fuel Chem. 1976;18.
[45] Vernon PD, Green ML, Cheetham AK, Ashcroft AT. Partial oxidation of methane
to synthesis gas. Catal Lett 1990;6:1816.
[46] Van Hook JP. Methane-steam reforming. Catal Rev 1980;21:151.
[47] Wurzel T, Malcus S, Mleczko L. Reaction engineering investigations of CO2
reforming in a uidized-bed reactor. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:395566.
[48] Tijm PJA, Waller FJ, Brown DM. Methanol technology developments for the
new millennium. Appl Catal A 2001;221:27582.

1314

Z. Guo et al. / Applied Energy 113 (2014) 13011314

[49] Bussche KMV, Froment GF. A steady-state kinetic model for methanol
synthesis and the water gas shift reaction on a commercial Cu/ZnO/Al2O3
catalyst. J Catal 1996;161:110.
[50] Zhu Y. Evaluation of gas turbine and gasier-based power generation system.
North Carolina State University; 2004.
[51] GE Energy. Heavy duty gas turbine products, 2009.http://www.ge.com/
mining/docs/2981884_1346774901_GE_Heavy_Duty_Gas_Turbines.pdf
[52] Chen L, Jiang Q, Song Z, Posarac D. Optimization of methanol yield from a Lurgi
reactor. Chem Eng Technol 2011;34:81722.
[53] Sotudeh-Gharebaagh R, Legros R, Chaouki J, Paris J. Simulation of circulating
uidized bed reactors using ASPEN PLUS. Fuel 1998;77:32737.
[54] Liu B, Yang X, Song W, Lin W. Process simulation development of coal
combustion in a circulating uidized bed combustor based on Aspen Plus.
Energy Fuels 2011;25:172130.
[55] Wang B, Dong L, Wang Y, Matsuzawa Y, Xu G. Process analysis of lignite
circulating uidized bed boiler coupled with pyrolysis topping. In: Yue G,
Zhang H, Zhao C, Luo Z, editors. Proceedings of the 20th international
conference on uidized bed combustion. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p.
70611.
[56] Grant DM, Pugmire RJ, Fletcher TH, Kerstein AR. Chemical model of coal
devolatilization using percolation lattice statistics. Energy Fuels
1989;3:17586.
[57] Anthony DB, Howard JB. Coal devolatilization and hydrogastication. AIChE J
1976;22:62556.
[58] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Carangelo RM, Serio MA, Deshpande GV. General
model of coal devolatilization. Energy Fuels 1988;2:40522.
[59] Niksa S, Kerstein AR. Flashchain theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics.
1. Formulation. Energy Fuels 1991;5:64765.
[60] Maffei T, Sommariva S, Ranzi E, Faravelli T. A predictive kinetic model of sulfur
release from coal. Fuel 2011.
[61] Maffei T, Ranzi E, Frassoldati A, Faravelli T. One step kinetic model of coal
pyrolysis for CFD applications. In: XXXIV meeting of the Italian Section of the
Combustion Institute, Rome; 2011.

[62] Sommariva S, Maffei T, Migliavacca G, Faravelli T, Ranzi E. A predictive multistep kinetic model of coal devolatilization. Fuel 2010;89:31828.
[63] Hamelinck CN, Faaij APC, den Uil H, Boerrigter H. Production of FT
transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and
optimisation, and development potential. Energy 2004;29:174371.
[64] Chen C. A technical and economic assessment of CO2 capture technology for
IGCC power plants. Carnegie Mellon University; 2005.
[65] Tarun CB, Croiset E, Douglas PL, Gupta M, Chowdhury MHM. Techno-economic
study of CO2 capture from natural gas based hydrogen plants. Int J Greenhouse
Gas Control 2007;1:5561.
[66] Li S, Gao L, Zhang X, Lin H, Jin H. Evaluation of cost reduction potential for a
coal based polygeneration system with CO2 capture. Energy 2012;45:1016.
[67] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE, Timmerhaus K, West R. Plant design and
economics for chemical engineers. NY: McGraw-Hill; 1968.
[68] Govin O, Diky V, Kabo G, Blokhin A. Evaluation of the chemical exergy of fuels
and petroleum fractions. J Therm Anal Calorim 2000;62:12333.
[69] Wikipedia. List of Renminbi exchange rates.
[70] Lu X, Yu Z, Wu L, Yu J, Chen G, Fan M. Policy study on development and
utilization of clean coal technology in China. Fuel Process Technol
2008;89:47584.
[71] Feasibility study report of a 200000 tonne-scale coal tar hydrogenration
project; 2011 [in Chinsese].
[72] Meerman JC, Ramrez A, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Performance of simulated
exible integrated gasication polygeneration facilities, Part B: economic
evaluation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:6083102.
[73] Xue B. Economic evaluation of dual-gas polygeneration system. Taiyuan:
Taiyuan University of Technology; 2010.
[74] Huijgen WJJ, Comans RNJ, Witkamp G-J. Cost evaluation of CO2 sequestration
by aqueous mineral carbonation. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:192335.
[75] Yang C-J, Jackson RB. Chinas growing methanol economy and its implications
for energy and the environment. Energ Policy 2012;41:87884.