Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Biomass integrated gasication combined cycle with reduced

CO2 emissions: Performance analysis and life cycle
assessment (LCA)
Andrea Corti, Lidia Lombardi

Dipartimento di Energetica Sergio Stecco, Universita degli Studi di Firenze,
Via Santa Marta 3, 50139 Florence, Italy

Abstract

Performance analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA) of an integrated gasication combined cycle
(IGCC) fed with biomass with upstream CO2 chemical absorption has been carried out. The main work-
ing conditions have been determined by mean of partial exergetic analysis. A sensitivity analysis with
respect to the CO2 absorbing solution composition has also been carried out. The reachable eciency
ranges between 35% and 36%, depending on gas turbine technology level. In comparison with eciency
values previously found for an IGCC fed with coal with upstream CO2 chemical absorption (3839%),
the conguration studied seems to be attractive because of the possibility of operating with a simplied
scheme (without H2S removal process) and at atmospheric pressure and for the possibility of using bio-
mass in a more ecient way with respect to conventional combustion systems. Due to the lower
eciency, the specic CO2 emission results higher (170 kg/MW h) with respect to the cycle fed with coal
and CO2 removal (130 kg/MW h). Moreover, the CO2 balance has been determined with respect to the
entire life cycle of the plant, including the construction, operation, dismantling and the biomass growing
phases.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The production of clean biomass syngas and its use in a Brayton/Hirn combined cycle has
been simulated. The goal is to obtain a syngas containing a high amount of hydrogen, losing as
little as possible of the original energy content.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-479-6349; fax: +39-055-479-6342.
E-mail address: lidia.lombardi@pin.uni.it (L. Lombardi).

0360-5442/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.015
2110 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

Fig. 1. Schematic of the IBGCC DeCO2 .

The basic scheme is an integrated gasication combined cycle (IGCC), reecting the present
technology of coal gasication systems, including particulate removal system but not H2S
removal system (due to low sulphur content in the feeding biomass), coupled with a gas turbine
combined cycle. With respect to this scheme two basic units have been added: a shift reaction
section and a CO2 chemical absorption process (DeCO2 unit), both working on the syngas
stream before its combustion. A schematic overall ow diagram is shown in Fig. 1: this con-
guration will be addressed in the following as IBGCC DeCO2 .
In the atmospheric pressure gasier, the biomass is converted with the gasifying mediums air
and steam to a CO- and H2-rich gas.
Particulate matter is removed in the downstream cyclone and then a catalytic shift reaction
takes place. Here, CO reacts with water to produce CO2 and H2. This stage is required to
obtain a H2-rich syngas from the CO-rich raw syngas; moreover, the obtained stream has a rel-
evant CO2 content, which can be conveniently removed through a subsequent chemical absorp-
tion process. The clean H2-rich syngas leaving this section needs to be pressurised and is nally
delivered to the combined cycle.
CO2 chemical absorption with aqueous amines solutions has been selected as the removal
technology, since this is the most developed CO2 removal technique.
All the processes mentioned above have been simulated by means of Aspen Plus 10.1-0 [1].

2. The gasication and shift reaction sections

In the simulation, an atmospheric gasier has been modelled, fed with 31 kg/s biomass mass
ow. The biomass considered is dry poplar (with a reference humidity equal to 15%), charac-
terised by a carbon/hydrogen ratio of 8.28 and a LHV of about 18 000 kJ/kg. Ultimate and
proximate analyses are reported in Table 1 [2].
The raw syngas exiting the gasier is rst cooled (HE1) and then sent to a cyclone, where
95% of y ashescomposed of solid unburned carbon and inert materialare removed and
recirculated back to the gasier. Fig. 2 shows this scheme and some more details of scheme con-
tained within the rectangular area highlighted in Fig. 1.
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2111

Table 1
Biomass ultimate and proximate analysis
Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis
Humidity 15% Ashes 1.43%
Fixed carbon 16.35% Carbon 48.45%
Volatile matter 82.32% Hydrogen 5.85%
Ashes 1.33% Nitrogen 0.47%
Chlorine 0.1%
Sulphur 0.01%
Oxygen 43.69%

Raw syngas is fed to a catalytic shift reaction section, where CO and water are converted into
CO2 and H2:
CO H2 O ! CO2 H2 44:477 MJ=molCO
In order to enhance the conversion of CO, the shift reaction is realised in two stage reactors at
v
about 450 and 250 C, respectively [3]. The total conversion rate of CO into CO2 is 99.5%.
The steam required for the shift reaction is obtained by means of direct steam extraction from
steam turbine and inserted upstream of the rst reactor in amount sucient for both the reac-
tors [3,4]. The total amount of process steam has been calculated with reference to a H2O/CO
molar ratio of 2 [3] and is found to be 31.9 kg/s. Since the shift reaction is exothermic, both the
reactors are provided with heat exchangers to keep the designed temperatures constant and for
released heat recovery. Further heat exchangers are added in order to cool the exiting syngas of
the rst to the design temperature (HE2) of the second reactor and to cool the exiting syngas of
the second reactor to be fed to the CO2 removal treatment (HE3) (cooling temperature assumed
v
at 30 C). The dierent heat recoveries contributedepending on their temperature rangeto
steam production for the power island bottoming steam cycle.

2.1. Denition of main operating parameters

Generally, gasiers are fed with air (or oxygen) and steam, whereas, in this case, no steam is
supplied to the gasication reactor. In fact, the aim of steam feedingi.e. promoting shift

Fig. 2. Schematic of the gasication and shift reaction section.

2112 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

v 
Fig. 3. Syngas LHV vs. e AirR =AirSTECH TGAS 1200 C .

conversion during gasicationis carried out by the devoted shift reaction section, where,
because of the catalysts, the conversion is even higher.
Preliminary simulations have been carried out to dene the gasication air ratio
e AirR =AirSTECH to be used. Better results in terms of caloric value of the syngas are
obtained for low ratio, as shown in Fig. 3, where the results are referred to a gasication tem-
v
perature of 1200 C (similar trends were found for other gasication temperature values).
According to this evidence e 0:2 has been assumed in the following.
In order to minimise the losses in the described sections, an accurate sensitivity analysis has
been carried out with respect to the main operating conditions: gasication temperature (TGAS)
and rst cooling temperature (THE1).
In order to dene the two parameters considered, the evaluation of energy consumption and
heat recovery (for steam production) has been carried out on exergetic basis. Substantially, the
following consumptions (C) and recoveries (R) have been considered and evaluated in terms of
their exergy content:

exergy content of the heat recovered keeping constant gasication temperature (R);
exergy content of the heat recovered from rst syngas cooling (HE1) (R);
exergy content of the steam input to shift reaction section (C);
exergy content of the heat recovered by keeping the rst shift reactor temperature constant
(R);
exergy content of the heat recovered from the intermediate shift reactors cooling (HE2) (R);
exergy content of the heat recovered by keeping the second shift reactor temperature
constant (R);
exergy content of the heat recovered from nal syngas cooling (HE3) (whereas nal
v v
temperature is 30 C, the recovery cooling is carried out only until 150 C).

A balance of the corresponding exergy contributionsdepending on the two considered

parametershas been carried out, looking for the operating conditions that allow maximum
recovery.
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2113

v
Fig. 4. Exergy balance vs. THE1 ; for TGAS 1100 C.

Varying the rst syngas cooling temperature (THE1) and keeping the gasication temperature
v
constant (TGAS), a maximum value for the exergy balance was found, corresponding to 270 C
(Fig. 4).
v
Gasication temperature has been varied between 800 and 1200 C (upper limit for gasication
v
reactions, self-suciency for the assumed e 0:2). In the case of TGAS higher than 1100 C
(assumed as the technological upper limit temperature for heat exchanger) a mixing heat
exchanger has been included, before entering the HE1, where the main syngas stream is cooled by
mixing with part of the low temperature syngas stream recirculated downstream of the cyclone.
Results of exergy balance sensitivity to TGAS and downstream shift reaction syngas energy
content LHV  flow rate sensitivity to TGAS are reported, respectively, in Figs. 5 and 6.
Since syngas energy contenti.e. LHVseems not to be very sensitive to TGAS changes, the
v
gasication temperature has been assumed equal to 1100 C, being the value which maximises
the exergy balance.
Table 2 summarises the assumed values for the operating parameters of the gasication and
shift reaction sections.
With reference to these operating conditions, the characteristics and composition of syngas
exiting gasication and shift sections, are reported in Table 3. CO2 amount is quite high: 65%
mass fraction.

v
Fig. 5. Exergy balance vs. TGAS ; for THE1 270 C.
2114 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

v
Fig. 6. Syngas energy content vs. TGAS ; for THE1 270 C.

Table 2
Summary of operating parameters in the gasication and shift reaction sections
Feeding biomass mass ow rate [kg/s] 31
Biomass LHV [ kJ/kg] 18 000
Gasication pressure [bar] 1.013
Cyclone eciency [%] 95
v
First shift reaction stage temperature [ C] 450
v
Second shift reaction stage temperature [ C] 250
Overall CO/CO2 conversion rate in the shift section [%] 99.5
Shift section steam/CO molar ratio 2
Shift section steam mass ow rate [kg/s] 31.9
e AirR =AirSTECH 0.2
v
THE1 [ C] 270
v
TGAS [ C] 1100

Table 3
Syngas conditions exiting the gasication and shift sections
Syngas mass ow rate [kg/s] 70.94
v
Temperature [ C] 30
Pressure [bar] 1.01325
Composition Mass frac. Mol frac.
H2O 3.9% 4.2%
CO2 65.1% 28.6%
N2 25.1% 17.3%
H2 5.2% 49.5%
CO 0.2% 0.1%
Ar 0.5% 0.2%
HCl 380 ppm 201 ppm
H2 S 38 ppm 21 ppm
CH4 3 ppm 3 ppm
COS 2 ppm 0.8 ppm
NH3 4 ppm 4 ppm
HCN 1 ppm 0.8 ppm
NO,SO2,C2H6 Trace
LHV [kJ/kg] 6217
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2115

3. CO2 removal section (DeCO2)

Chemical absorption has been selected because it is a well-developed technology and is parti-
cularly suitable for quite high CO2 concentration [5]. The absorbing medium is an aqueous
ammine blended solution, which is regenerated by means of temperature swing absorption
(TSA) process. According to a previous study [6], using appropriate blend of diethanolammine
(DEA) and methyldiethanolammine (MDEA) it is possible to keep regeneration heat require-
ment lower than 4 MJ/kg CO2REMOVED.
With reference to the specic syngas composition, the most suitable solution blend has been
investigated, considering total ammine content (mass fraction) of 30, 40 and 50% and varying
the DEA and MDEA mass fractions.
A total of 50% ammine solutions allow reaching a certain CO2 removal eciency with lower
solution mass ow rate and hence lower energy requirement than the other process considered.
Results for dierent DEA and MDEA mass fractions, for a total content of 50%, considering
80% CO2 removal eciency (this removal level was assumed so that results can be comparable
with previous studies [6]), showed a maximum value for cycle power output (i.e. maximum cycle
eciency, being constant the biomass input)hence a minimum CO2 removal energy require-
mentcorresponding to a 20% DEA and 30% MDEA composition (Fig. 7). Specic energy
requirement results about 3.4 MJ/kg CO2REMOVED, that is supplied in part by mean of heat
recovery and in part by steam extraction in the power section. This condition corresponds to
a required solution mass ow rate of 557 kg/sdeterminant for plant investment cost

Fig. 7. Power output vs. solution composition.

Fig. 8. Solution mass ow rate vs. solution composition.

2116 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

Table 4
Syngas conditions exiting the CO2 removal section
Syngas mass ow rate [kg/s] 38.82
v
Temperature [ C] 554
Composition Mass frac. Mole frac.
H2O 19.6% 13.6%
CO2 23.8% 6.8%
N2 45.9% 20.5%
H2 9.4% 58.6%
CO 0.3% 0.2%
Ar 0.8% 0.3%
H2S 60 ppm 22 ppm
HCl 658 ppm 226 ppm
MDEA 135 ppm 14 ppm
DEA 4 ppm 0.4 ppm
CH4 5 ppm 4 ppm
COS 4 ppm 0.8 ppm
NH3 5 ppm 4 ppm
HCN 2 ppm 0.7 ppm
SO2, NO, C2H6 Trace Trace
LHV [kJ/kg] 11 364

denitionnot minimised, but not far for the minimum value of 531 kg/s obtained for a 30%
DEA and 20% MDEA composition (Fig. 8).
The characteristics and composition of syngas exiting CO2 removal section, are reported in
Table 4. The syngas heating value is almost doubled, due to the removal of diluting CO2.

4. Power generation section

The power generation scheme is a conventional Brayton/Hirn combined cycle, with the
addition of the syngas compressor and the heat recoveries in the dierent syngas treatment
sections. Gas turbine (GT) operating conditions have been dened according to a reference
technology level: corresponding to an aero-derivative GT, with the characteristics summarised
in Table 5.
The gas turbine blade cooling has been considered by means of a simple model developed by
Facchini [7], which divides the ue gas expansion into two phases:

1. expansion of the combustion gases untill the temperature reaches TCOOL, calculated as:
Tin  TB
TCOOL TB p3

2
where TB is the blade temperature (1050 K) and Tin the GT inlet temperature.
2. mixing of the combustion gases at TCOOL with cooling airfrom the air compressor bypass-
ing combustionand nal expansion until GT exiting pressure.
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2117

Table 5
GT reference technology operating conditions
v
Tin [ C] 1258
v
Tout [ C] 537
v
Tout COMP [ C] 454
v
TCOOL [ C] 1158
Compression ratio 19
Compressor isentropic eciency 0.88
1st GT part isentropic eciency 0.86
2nd GT part isentropic eciency 0.87
Air/fuel ratio 11.149
Air mass ow rate [kg/s] 432.81
Cooling air mass ow rate [kg/s] 59.17
Cooling air/total air ratio 0.14

Table 6
Operating conditions and power consumption for syngas compression
Conditions Power [kW]
1st stage pressure [bar] 2.5 10 930
v
1st intercooler temperature [ C] 74 13 279
2nd stage pressure [bar] 7 13 720
v
2nd intercooler temperature [ C] 99
3rd stage pressure [bar] 19 37 929

GT simulation has been carried out with reference to parameter values reported in Table 5.
For the syngas compression up to the combustion chamber pressure, a three-staged inter-
cooled compressor was considered. Compression works and intermediate pressure and tempera-
ture levels, for the GT level reference case, are reported in Table 6.

Fig. 9. Steam cycle scheme.

2118 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

A two-pressure levels steam bottoming cycle was considered with high pressure (HP) steam at
v v
40 bar and 450 C, and low pressure (LP) steam at 2.5 bar and 168.1 C.
Heat recoveries from dierent cycle sectionsin addition to the heat recovery steam gener-
ator (HRSG) from GT exhaustshave been arranged in order to maximise the produced steam
ow rate. Fig. 9, shows the steam cycle scheme.

5. Results

The simulation results are reported in Table 7.

Syngas compression work represents a high fraction of the total combined cycle power out-
put, about 18.5%, and quite greatly contributes to the eciency reduction with respect to a
pressurised coal IGCC (46.6%) in a conventional conguration or with CO2 chemical absorp-
tion (38.8%) [8].
The two steam extractions from the steam turbinein order to supply the duty for amine
regeneration and for shift reaction steamalso largely aect the global performance. As a mat-
ter of fact, 4.55 eciency points are lost due to the amine regeneration duty requirement and
55.5 eciency points are lost due to the duty required for shift reaction steam supplying.
Specic CO2 emission can be directly compared with values obtained from previous studies
[8] for a conventional coal IGCC725 kg CO2 =MW hand a coal IGCC with CO2 removal
130 kg CO2 =MW h.
Specic CO2 emission can also be compared with other published results [4]: pulverised
coal (PC) conventional steam cycle 800 kg CO2 =MW h; conventional coal IGCC 760
kg CO2 =MW h; PC with CO2 chemical absorption (MEA or DEA) 100 kg CO2 =MW h; PC
with CO2 membrane separation 250 kg CO2 =MW h; coal IGCC with shift reaction and CO2
chemical absorption 40 kg CO2 =MW h.
Similar data can be found in Refs. [3] and [9] and are reported in Table 8.
Specic CO2 emission in the case of semi-closed GT combined cycle (SCGT/CC) is 388
kg CO2 =MW h and it is 65 kg CO2 =MW h when chemical absorption is applied [10].

Table 7
IBGCC DeCO2 simulation results
Fuel compressor [kW] 37 929
GT compressor [kW] 192 666
GT power [kW] 149 347
HP steam turbine [kW] 37 255
LP steam turbine [kW] 17 900
Steam cycle power [kW] 55 155
CC power [kW] 204 502
CC eciency [%] 36.27
CO2 specic emission kg CO2 =MW h 167
CO2 specic emission kg CO2 =kgBIOMASS  0.305
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2119

Table 8
Specic CO2 emission from literature
Cycle conguration kg CO2 =MW h
Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) 377 [3]
PC supercritical steam cycle 794
Coal IGCC without CO2 removal 747789
Coal IGCC with CO2 removal 74
Conventional coal IGCC 709 [9]
Coal IGCC with chemical abs. 73
Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and chemical abs. 72
Coal IGCC with physical abs. 72
Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and physical abs. 71
Coal IGCC with semi-closed GT and CO2 as 72
working uid

IBGCC DeCO2 has denitely a better conversion eciency and CO2 specic emission with
respect to biomass direct combustion in steam cycle conguration23% and about 1400
kg CO2 =MW h [11].

6. Life cycle assessment

According to the denition of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry [12]:
Life Cycle Assessment is a process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a
product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and
wastes released to the environment; to assess the impact of those energy and materials uses and
releases to the environment; and to identify and evaluate opportunities to aect environmental
improvements. The assessment includes the entire life-cycle of the product, process, or activity,
encompassing extracting and processing raw materials; manufacturing; transportation and dis-
tribution; use, re-use, maintenance; recycling and nal disposal. Hence, life cycle assessment
(LCA) considers the possible impact on the dierent environmental components, also consider-
ing the non-direct eect, deriving from the production processes of the manufactured materials
entering the system boundary.
LCA studies are composed of several interrelated components: goal denition and scoping,
inventory analysis, impact assessment, and improvement assessment [13].

6.1. LCA: goal and scope denition

The rst component of an LCA study is the Goal Denition and Scoping according to ISO
14041 [14]. This component consists of dening the study purpose and its scope, establishing the
functional unit.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the contribution to CO2 emission reduction that can be
achieved by mean of using biomass for energy production, in comparison with conventional fuel
2120 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

use. The functional unit is the produced energy unit (1 MJ), to which inventory data and results
are referred to.
Within the system studied, biomass production phase, plant construction, energy production
(operation, assumed equal to 15 years) and plant dismantling phases are included. Also, the
production processes of the manufactured materials entering the dened system are included.
In this way the entire system has been described and summarised in the inventory analysis in
terms of raw material inputs and emission outputs (solids, liquids and gases).

6.2. LCA: inventory analysis

Any product or service needs to be represented as a system in the inventory analysis method-
ology. A system is dened as a collection of materially and energetically connected operations
(e.g. manufacturing process, transport process, fuel extraction process) which performs some
dened function. The inventory analysis is a quantitative description of all ows of materials
and energy across the system boundary either into or out of the system itself ISO 14041 [14].

6.2.1. Biomass production and transportation

The biomass production ratio considered is equal to 13.4 ton/ha per year, with a cultivation
cycle of 7 years [15].
Mainly, the use of agricultural machines for seeding, growing and collection phases and the
use of pesticides and fertilisers have been considered using the data according to Ref. [15] and
are summarised in Table 9.
No consumption of water and energy for watering have been considered, since it has been
assumed that all the required water is supplied by rainfall.
Fuel consumption for agricultural machines have been calculated, with reference to the oper-
ations in Table 9, using emission factors in Refs. [15,16]. No contribution due to construction
and dismantling of agricultural machines has been considered.
Atmospheric emission factors for the use of fertilisers and pesticides/herbicides have been
retrieved respectively from Refs. [16,17].
Data for the production processes of manufactured materials entering the system (fertilisers,
pesticides/herbicides, fuels, electricity, etc.) have been retrieved from LCA devoted databases
[18,19].
Biomass transportation average distance has been assumed to be equal to 75 km. Atmos-
pheric emissions and fuel consumptions have been calculated following Ref. [16].

Table 9
Biomass growing phase data
N fertiliser use (50% urea and 50% ammonium nitrate ) 100 kg/ha (nitrate) during the 4th year of the cycle
P fertiliser use 22.4 kg/ha (as P) 1st year of the cycle
K fertiliser use (K2O) 39.2 kg/ha (as K) 1st year of the cycle
Pre-emergency herbicide use (Oust1) 36.5 cm3 a.s./ha 1st and 2nd year of the cycle
Post-emergency herbicide use (Roundrup1) 36.5 cm3 a.s./ha 1st and 2nd year of the cycle
Pesticide use Not considered
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2121

Moreover, a 20% loss of dry substance during ambient conditions drying process has been
considered [17]. Carbon dioxide assimilated by the biomass during the growing phase corre-
sponds to the amount of carbon in the biomass composition, equal to 48% in mass. Hence, for
each kilogram of carbon in the biomass about 3.67 kg of carbon dioxide have been subtracted
from the atmosphere.

6.2.2. Energy production operational phase

Inventory data for this phase come from the IBGCC Aspen Plus simulation (Table 10).

6.2.3. Plant construction phase

For the construction phase, the main materials have been considered (steel, cast iron, alu-
minium, copper, plastic, rubber asphalt and cement), accounting for their production processes
[16]. The amounts of these materials have been estimated by a rst sizing of the main devices in
the plant and with reference to a similar plant fed with coal [10], up-scaling or down-scaling the
devices.
Also, the on-site energy consumption for construction has been considered [10].

6.2.4. Plant maintenance phase

Contributions from devices maintenancebasically material consumption [10]and from
chemical products entering the energy cycle [10,18] have been accounted for.

6.2.5. Plant dismantling phase

Concerning the dismantling phase, energy consumption and the relative emissions for the on-
site work and recycling processes have been considered [10]. The material recycle is considered
as negative emission in the avoided production of new materials.

Table 10
Stack emission data
Compound Mass fraction
O2 12.94%
N2 71.70%
Ar 0.92%
H2 O 13.08%
CO2 1.26%
CO 0.06 ppm
NH3 Trace
H2 0.2 ppm
HCl 41 ppm
NO 0.1%
SO2 4 ppm
NO2 15 ppm
SO3 0.2 ppm
2122 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

6.3. LCA: impact assessment

Life cycle impact assessment [20] examines the mass and energy inventory input and output
data for a product system to translate these data to better identify their possible environmental
relevance and signicance. This translation uses, where possible, numerical indicators for spe-
cic subjects or categories, where the indicator reects in some manner the system environmen-
tal loading or resources depletion for that category. These indicators then constitute an
environmental loading and resources depletion prole for a system. This prole with possible
further analysis and weighting is intended to provide an additional useful perspective on the
possible environmental signicance in one or more general areas of resources, natural environ-
ment and human health.
In this study, LCA results are presented with reference to a single environmental indicator,
namely, greenhouse eect, since the aim of the proposed cycle is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Greenhouse eect values for the dierent considered phases are reported in Table 11, in terms
of kilograms of equivalent CO2 per functional unit (i.e. 1 MJ of energy produced), showing sep-
arately the contributions for photosynthesis reduction, biomass production and biomass trans-
portation. The results are compared with the corresponding values previously obtained for a
IGCC with DeCO2, where CO2 reduction at the stack is obtained by means of amine solution
chemical absorption [10] (the cited study was carried out based on the same main assumption as
the present one).
From the results in Table 11, it is evident that the contributions from the construction, main-
tenance and dismantling phase are negligible with respect to the others, as previously found [10]
(they have been accounted for reasons of completeness). The main contributions to greenhouse
eect come from operation phase and biomass production phase, with a value higher from bio-
mass production than from operation, since CO2 emissions are reduced at the stack. Moreover,
the subtracting contribution coming from the tree photosynthesis is of great importance and is
responsible for the nal negative value of the total greenhouse eect.
This means that, on the entire life cycle, the equivalent CO2 balance is not only closed, but
also allows a decrease in the overall emissions.
This result is evident in Table 12, where the equivalent CO2 balance is reported for the two
cases of an IBGCC with and without the CO2 stack reduction.

Table 11
LCA results in terms of greenhouse eect per functional unit, for the IBGCC DeCO2 and previous results for a
IGCC DeCO2
IBGCCgreenhouse eect [kg of equivalent CO2 per MJ]
Photosynthesis Biomass Biomass Energy IBGCC IBGCC IBGCC Total
sink production transportation conversion construction dismantling maintenance
2:88  101 6:01  102 1:18  102 5:09  102 2:53  104 4:96  106 2:90  105 1:65  101
IGCCgreenhouse eect [kg of equivalent CO2 per MJ]
Coal production and Energy IGCC IGCC IGCC Total
transportation conversion construction dismantling maintenance
6:24  102 3:61  102 3:38  104 3:08  105 8:35  104 9:97  102
 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124 2123

Table 12
Equivalent CO2 balance in the two cases of an IBGCC with and without CO2 stack reduction

With CO2 stack reduction Without CO2 stack reduction

Eq. CO2 emitted (kg) 0.1231893 0.3201798
Eq. net CO2 (kg) 0.1649143 0.0320761
Balance (%) 234 90

Concerning the comparison with results previously obtained for a IGCC with DeCO2, the
indicator values appear comparable, with the main contribution coming, also in this case, from
the coal production process, analogously to biomass production process. The substantial dier-
ence lay in the possibility of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by means of photo-
synthesis at times comparable to those of the energy process.

7. Conclusions

An IBGCC with carbon dioxide chemical absorption form the syngas has been simulated
by means of Aspen Plus. Results in term of CO2 specic emissions are denitely competitive
(167 kg CO2 =MW h) with respect to conventional coal IGCC (700800 kg CO2 =MW h) and
NGCC (380 kg CO2 =MW h).
Biomass feeding seems to be a good alternative even with respect to coal IGCC with CO2
removal treatments (70130 kg CO2 =MW h). If compared by means of a LCA approach, with
reference to the greenhouse eect indicator, the IBGCC DeCO2 and the IGCC DeCO2
show similar values for the dierent life cycle phases, including the production phase of both the
fuelscoal and biomasswhich are the main contributors. The main advantage of the IBGCC
comes from biomass growing phase, which contributes to CO2 natural sinking. CO2 balance
results almost closed also in the case of IBGCC without CO2 stack reduction and oers the
possibility of a huge reduction in atmospheric emission in the case of IBGCC with CO2 stack
reduction.

References
[1] ASPEN PLUSTM User GuideRelease 10.1-0; 2001.
[2] Domalski ES, Jobe TL. Thermodynamic data for biomass materials and waste components. New York: ASME
Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste; 1987.
[3] Chiesa P, Consonni S. Shift reactors and physical absorption for low-CO2 emission IGCCs. ASME Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 1999;121:295305.
[4] Hendriks C. Carbon dioxide removal from coal-red power plants. Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers; 1994.
[5] Eliasson B. The power industry and the CO2 issue. Liege, Belgium: University of Liege. Workshop on zero emis-
sion power plants; 1998.
[6] Corti A, Manfrida G. Economic analysis of a semi-closed gas turbine/combined cycle (SCGT/CC) with CO2
removal by amines absorption. In: Eliasson B, Riemer PWF, Wokaoun A, editors. GHGT-4 1998, 4th Inter-
national Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland. Oxford: Elsevier; 1999.
2124 A. Corti, L. Lombardi / Energy 29 (2004) 21092124

[7] Facchini B. La refrigerazione delle palettature di turbine a gas. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Energetica Sergio
Stecco, Universita degli Studi di Firenze; 1989 (in Italian).
[8] Fiaschi D, Lombardi L. IGCC plant with integrated CO2H2S removal: performance analysis and life cycle
assessment. In: Ozturk A, Gogus YA, editors. ECOS 2001, International Conference on Eciency, Cost, Opti-
misation, Simulation and Environmental Aspects of Energy and Process Systems. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul:
I.C.A.T; 2001, p. 55160.
[9] Chiesa P, Consonni S, Lozza G. A comparative analysis of IGCCs with CO2 sequestration. In: Eliasson B,
Riemer PWF, Wokaoun A, editors. GHGT-4 1998, 4th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland. Oxford: Elsevier; 1999.
[10] Lombardi L. LCA comparison of technical solutions for CO2 emissions reduction in power generation. Energy
Conversion and Management 2003;44(1):93108.
[11] U.S. Department of Energy. Direct-red biomass report on Burlington plant, Vermont (USA). Energy Eciency
and Renewable Energy Network. Available from: www.eren.doe.gov/power/pdfs/direct_re_bio.pdf
[12] Consoli F. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a code of practice. USA: Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry (SETAC); 1993.
[13] ISO 14040. Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentprinciples and framework; 1997.
[14] ISO 14041. Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentgoal and scope denition and inventory analy-
sis; 1998.
[15] Mann MK, Spath PL. Life cycle assessment of a biomass gasication combined-cycle power system. Golden, CO
(USA): National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1997.
[16] EEA. EMEP/CORINAIRemission inventory guidebook. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: European Environment
Agency; 1999.
[17] Rafaschieri A, Rapaccini M, Manfrida G. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from poplar energy
crops compared with conventional fossil fuels. Energy Conversion and Management 1999;40:147793.
[18] PRe Consultants. SIMAPRO, Database manual. Amersfoort (NL): PRe Consultants B.V; 1997.
[19] ANPA (Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione Ambientale - National Agency for Environmental Protection).
I-LCABanca dati italiana a supporto della valutazione del ciclo di vita (Italian Database to support LCA);
Ottobre 2000 (in Italian).
[20] ISO 14042. Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentlife cycle impact assessment; 2000.