A Review of Hydrogen Production Using Coal Biomass and Other Solid Fuels

Biofuels
ISSN: 1759-7269 (Print) 1759-7277 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbfu20
A review of hydrogen production using coal,

biomass and other solid fuels
N.V. Gnanapragasam & M.A. Rosen
To cite this article: N.V. Gnanapragasam & M.A. Rosen (2017) A review of hydrogen
production using coal, biomass and other solid fuels, Biofuels, 8:6, 725-745, DOI:
10.1080/17597269.2017.1302662
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1302662
Published online: 28 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 385
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbfu20
BIOFUELS, 2017
VOL. 8, NO. 6, 725–745
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1302662
A review of hydrogen production using coal, biomass and other solid fuels
N.V. Gnanapragasam and M.A. Rosen
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, L1H 7K4, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Solid fuels such as coal, biomass and solid waste are increasingly used with water to produce Received 8 October 2015
hydrogen, and the conversion processes have been enhanced through recent developments. Accepted 8 February 2017
An extended review of selected research and recent advances into hydrogen production from KEYWORDS
solid fuels is presented in this paper, focusing on novelty, understanding and application. Hydrogen production;
Suggestions from the review include increasing attention on minimization of waste (material biomass; solid fuel; energy
and energy) in processes through proper sizing of unit operations, especially those involving conversion; coal
catalysts and rare chemical compounds; minimizing the number of components in solid fuels-
to-hydrogen processes; increasing flexibility regarding demand-based operation of the system;
proper integration of the benefits of new processes; adding multi-product capability to satisfy
hydrogen demand; and coordinating the use of waste heat within systems.
Introduction as shown in Figure 1, which compares a conven-

tional energy route (1) to a hydrogen energy
The search for better uses of solid fuels is gaining promi-
route (2). The conventional route incurs more
nence rapidly due to environmental issues such as pollut-
losses, while the hydrogen route currently has
ant emissions from the corresponding energy conversion
less range for producing electricity.
processes. The impact of global warming has attracted
- Hydrogen does not occur naturally, but must be
efforts toward reducing or capturing emissions of CO2
extracted from naturally occurring compounds
and other greenhouse gases from all sources. Hydrogen
via energy-intensive processes.
is an energy carrier like electricity but with advantageous
- Water is the primary source for hydrogen, fol-
applications, especially in transportation (through
lowed by fossil fuels. Water resource manage-
engines and fuel cells). Hydrogen does not occur natu-
ment thus becomes important for large-scale
rally in large quantities or in high concentrations on Earth.
hydrogen production.
It must be produced from other compounds such as
- Hydrogen is a clean fuel, i.e. hydrogen use in a
water and hydrocarbons (natural gas, heavy oils and oil
combustion process to produce work (vehicles) or
sands). An extended review of selected research and
in electrochemical process (fuel cells) to produce
recent advances on hydrogen production from solid fuels
electricity does not produce harmful chemical
is presented here. To provide the necessary information
compounds, avoiding harm to the ecosystem.
on assessing ways of producing hydrogen from the avail-
- Hydrogen storage requires significant resources.
able solid fuels, background is provided on hydrogen,
The residence time for hydrogen needs to be
solid fuels and conversion processes.
kept small to avoid leakage and other losses.
Hydrogen energy Note that although the comparison in Figure 1

shows only the energy route, the additional resources
In current industrial markets, hydrogen is mainly used required are always higher for the hydrogen route (b)
as an intermediate commodity in the synthesis of in order to produce several products at one location.
chemicals and clean fuels. With the shift toward a The use in transportation of electricity depends on
hydrogen economy (including hydrogen for the power improvements in battery technology while the use of
and transport sectors), however, there is an incentive hydrogen depends on improved storage and its use to
to use hydrogen as an energy carrier [1–3]. move a vehicle via combustion or electrochemical
Some key points on hydrogen production and the means.
need for its use are as follows: A hydrogen economy [2–5] will require sustainable
contributions to production and storage combined
- Hydrogen is an efficient energy carrier. Options with increased demand in the commercial and
for producing hydrogen are greater for solid fuels
CONTACT M.A. Rosen [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
726 N. V. GNANAPRAGASAM AND M. A. ROSEN
increase due to limited reserves, production losses are

reduced, pollution capture/avoidance becomes eco-
nomical and demand for increased hydrogen produc-
tion is realized. Unless a hydrogen infrastructure exists
with a sustained supply and demand, producing the
current energy carrier (electricity) using solid fuels is
found to be more economical [6].
Solid fuels: supply and utilization

Solid fuels are indirect sources of hydrogen and they
can aid the production of hydrogen from water using
various conversion processes, sometimes yielding
Figure 1. Comparison of routes for using solid fuels: (a) con- additional products. Solid fuels include such hydrocar-
ventional power plant, and (b) hydrogen production with its bons as coal, tar sands, oil shale and bitumen; renew-
multiple uses.
able organic materials such as biomass and agricultural
and forest residue; and renewable inorganic materials
industrial sectors. Sources for hydrogen production such as municipal solid waste and industrial waste.
and hydrogen uses are shown in Figure 2a and b, Reserves of solid fuels are significantly higher than
respectively. The current contribution of solid fuels those of other fossil fuels. Eighty percent of current
(coal and biomass in Figure 2) to hydrogen production global energy use is supplied by fossil fuels; 13.5% by
is comparable to that of other sources, and the contri- renewable sources like solar, wind and geothermal
butions are expected to increase as natural gas prices energy; and 6.5% by nuclear energy [7].
Energy
(a) sources for
hydrogen
Fossil fuels Renewable Nuclear

resources
Natural gas Coal Biomass Solar Wind* Hydro* Others** Electric* Thermal
Thermal Photo- Photo-

voltaic* biological
* Processes generating electricity likely supply hydrogen production via electrolysis.

** Others include geothermal, wave, tidal, etc.
Hydrogen
(b)
Building Transpor- Industrial Power

sector tation sector generation
sector sector
Residential & Industrial & Internal Fuel cells Power Chemical Power Cogeneration
commercial others combustion generation processing generation
engines
Figure 2. (a) Energy source options for producing hydrogen for a hydrogen economy. (b) Utilization options for hydrogen in a
hydrogen economy.
BIOFUELS 727
Coal is the most significant contributor among fossil processes depend on feedstock characteristics, volume
fuels to current global electricity generation, account- of production and post-conversion processes to man-
ing for 40% [8]. The most abundant fossil fuel on the age wastes and by-products [19]. Gasification is of great
planet, current estimates of global recoverable coal significance for coal, while for biomass other conversion
reserves range from 216 years to over 500 years [9] at processes such as anaerobic digestion and supercritical
present usage rates. By the year 2025, it is expected water gasification appear advantageous due to the
that the US will require over 250 GW of new electrical higher moisture content in biomass [22]. De-carboniza-
generation capacity even without considering replac- tion processes for fossil fuels ranging from natural gas
ing old plants [10]. Of this new capacity, the Internal- to solid fuels have been reviewed to identify clean pro-
tional Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that 80 GW will cesses for hydrogen production from fossil fuels [23].
be met through the construction of coal-fired power Included was an overview of the commercial potential
plants. The worldwide installed capacity of coal-fired of new technologies, which suggests uses for solid car-
plants is expected to increase by over 40% in the next bon after CO2 sequestration.
20 years, exceeding 1400 GW by 2025 [10]. The supply Electricity and hydrogen production processes from
and utilization of other solid fuels are discussed in coal and natural gas, with CO2 capture, have been com-
detail elsewhere [7,8,11,12]. pared for various technologies and for large-scale and
Industrial inorganic solid wastes such as scrap tires decentralized systems [24,25]. That comparison demon-
[13] and plastics [14] are also considered ‘alternative’ strated that a short-term net power efficiency of 32 to
fuels through effective gasification processes. 40% is achieved by an integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) system with production costs of 4.7 to 6.3
€ct/kWh. A review of the gasification of oil sand coke
Issues associated with solid fuels
from the tar sands of western Canada provides details
Since most solid fuels contain carbon, their use in pro- on the conversion process and selection criteria for gas-
ducing hydrogen results in CO2 emissions, which is cur- ifiers depending on the feedstock [26]. Kirubakaran
rently the most significant greenhouse gas and to et al. [27] reviewed biomass gasification and investi-
which is attributed increasing temperatures in the lower gated the effects of size, structure, environment, tem-
atmosphere [15]. One option to avoid carbon dioxide perature, heating rate, composition of biomass and ash
emissions is the use of renewables, but renewable on the gasification process. The selection of auto-gasifi-
energy sources which can provide base-load electricity cation as a more suitable process for biomass was also
– hydro, biomass and geothermal – together are not assessed. For thermochemical routes for producing
anticipated to be able to satisfy even existing electricity hydrogen using biomass, the effects on gas yield have
demands, and are not climate-neutral when operating been reviewed of such parameters as temperature, cata-
continuously [16]. Another possible option, coal gasifica- lyst activity and biomass/steam ratio [28]. Physicochemi-
tion with carbon capture and sequestration/storage cal properties of hydrogen and its uses were also
(CCS), entails large energy and cost penalties using examined. A review of co-gasification of coal, petroleum
proven methods of CO2 separation. In an effort to dem- coke and up to 10% of several types of biomass [29]
onstrate the potential of CO2-free coal fired power gen- describes the influence of fuel variation on gasifier effi-
eration, a company in Germany [17] has commissioned ciency and recommends operational modifications in
and is operating a power plant incorporating a com- oxy-co-gasification. Various production processes for
plete CO2 capture and sequestration facility. Research hydrogen from renewable energy sources within the US
on CO2 capture and separation for gasification [18] is energy market have also been reviewed [30].
focussing on novel concepts in wet scrubbing with The average energy and exergy conversion efficien-
physical sorption, chemical sorption with solid sorbents, cies of syngas from solid fuel gasification (76%
and separation by membranes. and75%, respectively) are found [31] to be higher than
Other issues regarding solid fuels such as washing, those for hydrogen (64% and 55%). However, coal-to-
drying, ash removal and solid pollutant removal are syngas conversion generates a significant amount of
understood and managed already in solid fuels-based solid waste and the material intensity is much higher
energy systems [19,20]. for syngas than for natural gas and hydrogen (21 and
39 g/g, respectively), indicating a higher load on the
environment which should be dealt with carefully.
Solid fuels conversion processes
Techno-economic comparisons of hydrogen produc-
Prior review articles related to processes for producing tion via steam-methane reforming, coal and biomass
electricity along with hydrogen from coal and biomass gasification and water electrolysis have been reported
provide useful background for the current review. Pri- [6]. Increasing natural gas prices is observed to make
mary conversion processes in producing hydrogen from coal gasification as well as biomass gasification compet-
solid fuels include gasification, anaerobic digestion, fer- itive provided the technological barriers are overcome
mentation and liquefaction [21]. Applications of these (feedstock processing and post-conversion of products).
Hydrogen derived from coal is slated to be the primary preliminary design. This systems approach considers
objective in the fuels program of the US Department of hydrogen production by integrating different conver-
Energy [32], and research is ongoing to develop mod- sion processes using available solid fuels. One such sys-
ules for co-producing hydrogen from coal via systems tem is shown in Figure 3, where the main conversion
integrated with advanced coal power plants at prices process is gasification from which several products
competitive with crude oil [33]. including hydrogen are derived for various applications.
Advances in hydrogen production using solid fuels are
aimed at establishing a sustainable economic system,
Scope
including the required infrastructure to permit hydro-
Direct conversion processes to produce hydrogen from gen use, storage and distribution. Economic aspects of
solid fuels in a single stage do not exist. All hydrogen hydrogen production from solid fuels are considered.
production processes involve additional steps to
extract and enrich hydrogen from the raw gaseous
product of the primary conversion processes. Each of Primary conversion process research
these processes requires energy and efficient hydro-
Much research on converting solid fuels to hydrogen is
gen production from solid fuels seeks to reduce the
in early stages, but developments are expected to
overall energy requirement.
accelerate in the near future as the demand for hydro-
The present studies on converting solid fuels to
gen increases. Recent research into processes for con-
hydrogen are categorized into two types for the cur-
verting solid fuels to gaseous forms indicates that such
rent discussion: (1) primary conversion process investi-
processes have significant potential for commercializa-
gations, which include improvements and innovations
tion and should be able to achieve industrial-scale pro-
in converting solid fuels to gaseous forms; and (2)
duction levels. Processes undergoing extensive
applications of conversion processes in systems, which
research include plasma gasification, ultra-superheated
involves research that integrates different processes
steam gasification, supercritical water gasification,
for improved hydrogen production. The boundary
anaerobic digestion, solar thermal de-carbonization,
between a conversion process and its application is
auto thermal reforming and chemical looping combus-
not distinct, but can be observed when analyzing the
tion. Only preliminary results and analyses are reported
entire hydrogen production route, from solid fuel to
in the literature for these processes.
hydrogen. An assessment of research for the two cate-
gories is provided here, incorporating the following
aspects: design, modeling, analysis, optimization and
Gasification
economic evaluation.
System integration and its benefits and challenges Gasification presently is the only commercial, large-
are emphasized, particularly in the context of scale option for converting solids into gases [20,34],
Figure 3. Gasification is the most significant primary energy conversion process in the path from solid fuels to hydrogen with a
multi-product-application option that may help during the transition from a carbon economy to a hydrogen economy. IC: Internal
Combustion
BIOFUELS 729
and the cleanest conversion technology for solid fuels. Ultra-superheated steam gasification
Academic and industrial research is expected to yield A new method for gasifying carbonaceous materials to
improved production capabilities and operating effi- syngas comprises the formation of an ultra-superheated
ciencies. The gasification of carbonaceous, hydrogen- steam (USS) composition containing mainly water
containing fuels is an effective method for thermal vapour, carbon dioxide and highly reactive free radicals
hydrogen production [35] and is considered a key [43]. The USS at temperatures ranging from 1316 to
technology in the transition to a hydrogen economy 2760 C is a clear colorless flame; when it comes into
[1–3]. Gasification converts solid fuels into a synthetic contact with carbonaceous materials (feedstock) rapid
gas (syngas) comprised mainly of CO, CO2, H2, CH4, gasification occurs to form a syngas. Pei and Kulkarni
H2O and other constituents in minor concentrations [44] observed that the syngas generated from USS gas-
[19]. Syngas production offers the possibility of obtain- ification has a higher hydrogen fraction (more than
ing multiple products that can be used for different 50%) than other gasification processes. When used
applications. Gasification has the highest energy-con- within an IGCC system the overall efficiency is found to
version efficiency relative to other solid fuel conversion be lower [44], suggesting that USS gasification is more
technologies [36]. Gasification forms the central ele- suitable for hydrogen production than power
ment of IGCC systems, and has the best fuel flexibility generation.
of advanced technologies for power production. Cur-
rent technology is well adapted to using biomass and Supercritical water gasification (SCWG)
other low-value feedstocks that have high ash residues This process is aimed at generating hydrogen from the
[37]. Gasification also permits the control and reduc- biogenic feedstock sewage sludge [45]. The process
tion of gaseous pollutant emissions [38], and a low- exploits the specific physical and chemical properties
cost approach to concentrate carbon dioxide emissions of water above its critical point (T = 374 C, P = 221
at high pressure to facilitate sequestration. bar). These properties allow for a nearly complete con-
Coal, biomass and solid wastes are potential gasifi- version of the organic substance contained in the feed
cation fuels for increasing syngas production and material to an energy-rich fuel gas containing hydro-
methanol synthesis [21,39]. Methanol from coal and gen, carbon dioxide and methane. The characteristics
biomass gasification can be made economic by linking of supercritical water gasification are examined and
its production to modern gas-steam power systems. compared to other energy conversion technologies by
Such integration permits utilization of the full capacity modeling an overall energy system [46]. A supercritical
of coal/biomass gasification installations. A recent water gasification combined cycle is determined to be
novel aspect of gasifier design is the integration of a the most efficient conversion process for biomass with
fluidized bed gasification reactor and a combustion high moisture content. The break-even point between
furnace, with a dividing wall between them [40]. In thermal gasification and supercritical water gasification
such a system, unburned char generated in the gasifi- is approximately 40% biomass moisture content.
cation reactor is combusted in the furnace, and the Li et al. [47] developed a novel continuous-flow sys-
heat generated in combustion is used for gasification. tem for coal gasification in supercritical water, and con-
Muller et al. [41] describe large-scale hydrogen pro- ducted associated experiments. The gasification
duction from biomass based on a dual fluidized-bed characteristics of coal are investigated for a range of
steam-gasification system. The investigation includes a experimental conditions, specifically for temperatures
possible process design and process simulation using of 650–800 C, pressures of 23–27 MPa and coal/water
the software IPSEpro. The simulation results show that slurry mass flow rates of 3–7 kg/h. The hydrogen frac-
61 MW of hydrogen can be produced from 100 MW of tion attained is as high as 72.85%. Jin et al. [48] demon-
wood chips and 6 MW of electricity. strated the gasification of coal slurry in the presence of
sodium to increase the carbon gasification efficiency to
Gasifier selection 95% in the SCWG process (thereby improving the
The selection of gasifiers for IGCC based on perfor- hydrogen content in the syngas).
mance and economic aspects has been reported by
the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the US Plasma gasification
Department of Energy [42]. This comparison demon- Plasma gasification is another new process for produc-
strated that the transport gasifier yields the lowest ing a hydrogen-rich syngas. The process has no limita-
electricity cost, while the Texaco and British Gas Lurgi tion on feedstock characteristics and no requirement
gasifiers result in the highest electricity costs. Gasifying of air/oxygen, and is a pyrolysis process becoming
coal and other solid fuels aims to make the syngas commercially popular in solid waste management facil-
more methane rich since methane has twice the ities. Coal gasification in a steam and air environment
hydrogen of water per molecule and requires less under arc plasma conditions has been investigated for
energy to break away from carbon, thus forming an hydrogen production [49]. The steam environment is
advantageous means for hydrogen production [19]. estimated to increase syngas output by 30 to 40% for
plasma gasification compared to an air environment. steam gasification catalyzed by potassium salts. The
Efforts toward process development and energy opti- potassium salt catalysis effectively enhances the gasifi-
mization for plasma gasification of sewage sludge cation reactivity of petroleum coke, and greatly pro-
have been reported [50]. The equilibrium model based motes the hydrogen production. These authors show
on plasma gasification demonstrated that an input of that it is feasible to produce syngas with high hydro-
250 ton/day sewage sludge with 68% moisture yielded gen concentrations (up to 60%) and virtually no CH4
a net electrical power output of 2.85 MW. Other plasma concentrations (i.e. below 0.1%).
gasification investigations have also been reported
[51]. Direct biomass gasification
A system with enhanced economic viability for syngas
Catalytically controlled reaction gasification (CCRG) production from direct biomass gasification has been
Another novel development is the catalytically con- assessed [56]. The ratio of H2 to CO is an important fac-
trolled reaction gasification (CCRG) process, which tor for the performance of this process. The maximum
combines the attributes of catalytic combustion and hydrogen content attained during optimal operating
radiation heat transfer to gasify coal efficiently [52]. In conditions was found to be 52.47 vol%, while the H2/
principle this is similar to any other catalyst-based gasi- CO ratio varies between 1.87 and 4.45. An appropriate
fication process, but with an efficient control mecha- temperature (750 C) and increased catalyst were deter-
nism through a temperature-controlled dividing wall mined to favor higher H2/CO ratios. A comparison of
and optimal use of a catalyst. This system decouples this technology with others reveals that it provides sig-
the heat generation reactions from the gasification nificant potential for syngas production from direct
reactions by separating the combustion and reaction biomass gasification [56].
chambers with a wall and heat transfer surface,
enabling more efficient gasification through effective Multi-staged enthalpy extraction technology
temperature control of the gasification reactions. The The performance of the gasification process in a system
technology has the following advantages [52]: incorporating multi-staged enthalpy extraction technol-
ogy (MEET) has been investigated for various coal
1. It allows the use of catalytic combustion to gen- capacities [57]. The use of high-temperature air (over
erate the required heat for the endothermic gasi- 1000 C) with a low air stoichiometric ratio allows the
fication reactions, thereby minimizing oxygen production of a low-volume syngas, thereby reducing
use and temperature variations, and reducing equipment size and cost. The ash is converted to mol-
NOx production to essentially zero. ten slag using the available thermal energy, facilitating
2. Since catalytic combustion with a solid fuel like its removal. A modified version of MEET is achieved [58]
coal is impractical, the use of separate chambers through steam/air reforming using a fixed-bed pyrolyzer
allows product gases such as CO to be catalyti- combined with a high-temperature reformer and a
cally combusted with no particulate emissions. steam/air mixture. This effort demonstrated that the
3. Separate chambers allow the production of eas- pyrolysis gas effectively decomposed tar and soot com-
ily separable streams of hydrogen, CO, ash, water ponents into CO and H2, yielding a nearly dust and tar
and CO2. free reformed syngas. The key advantage of MEET is
that it lowers pollution in both solid and gaseous forms
Wang et al. [53] model hydrogen production from while producing syngas from coal.
biomass and coal co-gasification with a catalyst. The Use of high-temperature air (instead of oxygen from
effects of operating conditions on hydrogen produc- the Air Separation Unit (ASU)) as an oxidant reduces
tion are simulated. The results indicate that the addi- the plant scale, while the heating value of the syngas
tion of calcium oxide at specific conditions can produced from the MEET system is lower than that
significantly improve hydrogen production and lower obtainable from oxygen-blown gasification systems,
the required temperature for gasification. creating a challenge for applications of this type of syn-
Wu et al. [54] investigate potassium-catalyzed steam gas [57].
gasification of petroleum coke for H2 production using A farm-based use of the MEET gasifier [59] suggests
a laboratory fixed-bed reaction system. Catalytic gasifi- that the compact size of this type of gasifier assists por-
cation not only effectively promotes these reactions table applications in farmlands for effective on-site
(water-carbon reaction, water-gas shift and methane- waste disposal and generating power that can satisfy
steam reforming), but also greatly elevates the gasifica- the farm energy requirements.
tion selectively toward CO2. This is significant since a
high gasification selectively toward CO2 implies a high Fast gasification
H2 production rate. Wu et al. [55] also investigate, using A system has been developed for the production of
a laboratory fixed-bed reaction system, the reactivity hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the fast gasification
and H2 production characteristics of petroleum coke of liquid, muddy or solid raw materials [60]. The raw
BIOFUELS 731
materials are gasified in a vertical expansion mono- they operate. The two combustion-related factors of
tubular reactor through thermochemical decomposi- greatest impact on gasifier design and operation are
tion caused by cracking. A control system that prevents reported to be (1) fuel reactivity, and (2) slag flow as it
atmospheric air from entering the reactor and syngas runs down the refractory walls and out of the bottom
from exiting during operation is found to increase the of the reactor under gravity [66]. A gasification product
rate of syngas output. gas with tar content below the targeted limit of 2 g/m3
Fast gasification is part of a series of reactions that can be achieved only under special conditions in terms
occur within many gasification systems [19] at a rapid of gasifier design and operation as well as feedstock
rate depending on the local temperature and pressure characteristics [67].
gradients within a particular zone in the tall column of
the gasifier unit. The phase and chemical equilibrium Performance optimization
in that zone along with the flow regimes (fluidized or An assessment of the performance of a gasifier operat-
transport) determine the rate of reaction. ing without air preheat and using a higher moisture-
content fuel (over 10% moisture by weight) demon-
Low waste-heat gasification strated the benefits of high-temperature air preheat
A gasification system for efficiently extracting heat [59]. Performance improvement was observed to
from biomass with little waste heat has been devel- improve minimally by drying a manure-waste fuel to
oped [61]. The biomass gasification system includes a below 10% moisture. An investigation of the selection
primary combustion chamber, a rotating grate within of IGCC candidate coals using a pilot-scale gasifier
the primary combustion chamber to support the bio- operation showed that high-ash coals (about 17% by
mass during gasification, a feeder unit in communica- weight) yields less than 60% cold-gas efficiency [68].
tion with the primary combustion chamber for To improve the efficiency for such low-reactivity coal, it
delivering biomass, a secondary combustion chamber is suggested that the gasifier design should permit
fluidly connected to the primary combustion chamber, increased reaction time and the option of char recy-
an oxygen mixer positioned between the primary and cling, and that methods of inducing higher mixing of
secondary combustion chambers, a heat exchanger coal powder with reacting gases be considered. Since
and an exhaust stack. Additional conversion processes all types of coal can be gasified, gasification appears
could be incorporated to produce hydrogen. promising for production of hydrogen from coal. Gasifi-
cation plants are also advantageous, compared to
Lime-enhanced gasification other coal-based alternatives, for CO2 capture [1].
This process uses CaO (calcium oxide) as a CO2 carrier An optimization of catalytic steam gasification of
and consists of two coupled reactors: a gasifier in biomass at low temperatures for hydrogen production
which CO2 absorption by CaO produces a hydrogen- suggests that higher temperatures and steam flow
rich product gas, and a regenerator in which the sor- rates increase syngas yield [69]. At 600 C and high
bent is calcined, producing a high purity CO2 gas steam content (about 90%), hydrogen production can
stream suitable for storage [62]. Equilibrium calcula- be optimized with the help of a catalyst when using
tions suggest the influence of process conditions and biomass. The status of catalytic gasification of biomass,
sulfur content in obtaining more than 95% carbon cap- similarities and differences between dry and wet pro-
ture from the gasification process. A similar process is cesses, and challenges for future research and develop-
discussed [63] as part of the details on calcium looping ment from both catalysis and process viewpoints have
process for converting CO2 into CaCO3 (calcium car- been discussed [70].
bonate) and back to CaO in a continuous loop while
obtaining high-purity hydrogen. Process optimization Modeling research
was reported [64] to reduce the energy penalty in The numerical simulation of coal gasification in an
lime-enhanced biomass gasification by preheating sol- entrained-flow coal gasifier led to a proposed tech-
ids in the calciner. nique for gasifier design evaluation, incorporating gasi-
Additional information on all of the above gasifica- fication performance indices based on predicted data
tion processes can be found in the literature cited, [71]. A numerical investigation of partial oxidation in a
including process diagrams and specific details [65]. two-stage downdraft gasifier, performed with a two-
dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
model, helped provide details regarding the oxidation
Gasification process optimization and modeling
zone [72]. The simulations highlighted several crucial
The modeling of conversion process components such points regarding the process: (1) tertiary tar is mainly
as gasifiers is becoming a standard practice to improve destroyed by combustion; (2) the pyrolysis gas compo-
and optimize their design and operation. Numerous sition significantly influences the process; (3) the air
investigations have been reported over the years on injector design is fundamental in gasification as air
optimizing gasifiers and the energy systems in which velocity and air/fuel ratio greatly influence the process;
and (4) a critical injection velocity (about 34 m/s in this Gasification process demonstrations
case) exists above which the flow pattern changes In the last several years, many demonstration projects
dramatically. have occurred around the world aimed at testing and
optimizing the operation of various gasification pro-
Experimental research cesses, including those discussed in section titled 'Gasi-
A novel fluidized bed gasifier fitted with water-cooled fication'. Some notable demonstrations include:
sampling probes for measuring the axial gas concentra-
tions at various gasifier heights has been reported [73]. A fluidized bed gasification plant to gasify 600 kg/
Three distinct zones are observed in the gasifier. In the h of herbs to produce hydrogen-rich fuel gas has
first zone (the bottom 10 cm from the distributor), char been built to demonstrate the two-stage fluidized
combustion and gasification reactions dominate. In the bed process [81].
second zone, the de-volatilization products from the A supercritical water gasification unit for 50 kg/h
biomass combine with the char gasification reactions. of wet biomass has been built to demonstrate the
The third zone is the freeboard where variations in the SCWG process in producing syngas [82].
main gas components occur due to the water-gas shift A plasma gasification system for hazardous solid
reaction. Experimental and modelling investigations of waste with a capacity of 50 kg/h of waste has been
long-stick wood gasification in a top-lit updraft fixed built to demonstrate the vitrification of solid waste
bed gasifier describe common problems of many gas- while producing hydrogen-enriched syngas [83].
ifier designs [74]. They produce so much tar that the A direct biomass gasification system in an 80 kWth
gas cleanup equipment cost is several times the gasifier fluidized bed has been built to demonstrate the
cost. Fluidized beds typically produce 0.5 to 4% tars air biomass gasification process, with an output of
while updraft biomass gasifiers produce 10% tars. Both about 2 m3 of syngas per kg of biomass [84].
stratified down draft and top-lit updraft gasifiers pro- A system for the integrated catalytic adsorption
duce much lower tar levels, typically 0.1%. For the gas- steam gasification of palm kernel shell has been
ifier, the top-lit updraft mode is found to provide more built to demonstrate the catalytic gasification pro-
satisfactory overall performance. cess to obtain 150 g of hydrogen per kg of bio-
Song et al. [75] experimentally investigate hydrogen mass feedstock [85].
production using laboratory-scale interconnected flu-
idized beds. The high-velocity fluidized bed is designed Anaerobic digestion
for a combustor, and the spout-fluid bed for a gasifier.
Anaerobic digestion and supercritical gasification pro-
The results indicate that both a relatively high hydro-
cesses have been applied to produce substitute natural
gen content and large hydrogen yield are obtained
gas (SNG) by converting wet biomass (70–95 wt.% water),
with biomass gasification in interconnected fluidized
and assessed [22]. For relatively dry biomass (10–15 wt.%
beds. An optimal value of the steam/biomass ratio
water) steam-blown indirect gasification, pressurized oxy-
exists corresponding to maximal hydrogen yield.
gen-blown gasification, hydro-gasification, and co-pro-
duction of both Fischer–Tropsch diesel and SNG have
Thermodynamic optimization
been considered. Anaerobic digestion, a biological pro-
A coal/H2O/CaO gasification system for hydrogen pro-
cess that occurs in the absence of air, has been used to
duction was recently investigated thermodynamically
convert organic wastes to biogas, i.e. a mixture of meth-
[76]. The influences on hydrogen production of gasifier
ane (55–75 vol.%) and carbon dioxide (25–45 vol.%). Dur-
operating temperature, pressure and coal type, and
ing anaerobic digestion, typically 30–60% of the solid
steam/carbon ratio were examined based on chemical
input is converted to biogas. The by-products consist of
equilibrium. It was suggested that the operating pres-
an undigested residue and various water-soluble sub-
sure in the gasifier be maintained at 20 to 30 bar for
stances. Depending on the digestion system (wet or dry),
enhanced CO2 partial pressure and capture efficiency.
the average residence time is between 10 days and 4
The appropriate gasifier temperature is between 625
weeks. The anaerobic digestion of biomass and organic
and 850 C, for which more than 70% hydrogen can be
waste streams has the potential to facilitate energy recov-
obtained with a production efficiency of 46.45%. The
ery and sustainability from biodegradable waste [86].
overall system also cogenerates hydrogen and power
With current developments in reformer technologies,
with near zero emissions.
hydrogen can be produced from methane-derived anaer-
A first law of thermodynamics analysis of the biomass
obic digestion of organic waste material, much of which
gasifier showed [77] that the optimum conditions for
is currently landfilled.
hydrogen production occurred at a gasification tempera-
ture of 1000 K, a steam/biomass ratio of 3 and an equiva-
Chemical looping combustion
lence ratio of 0.1 toward achieving 54% energy efficiency.
Other studies of biomass to hydrogen systems have been Chemical looping combustion (CLC), developed in the
reported, using gasification of other processes [78–80]. mid 1990s, uses metallic oxide as an oxygen carrier for
BIOFUELS 733
combustion [87]. The fuel, mostly gases similar in com- process and achieve a 99% hydrogen stream. A recent
position to syngas, reduces the metal oxide to the cor- review [95] of CLC technology describes the demon-
responding metal at low temperature in the first stration of various processes using this technology to
reactor. In a second reactor, the metal is oxidized using capture CO2 from hydrocarbon-based solid fuels and
oxygen in moistened air at high temperature to form its movement toward commercialization.
the metal oxide, which is recycled to the first reactor.
Hydrogen is produced from water in the second reac-
Solar energy-based de-carbonization
tor. During the reaction in the first reactor, the oxygen
in the metal is transferred to the carbon in the fuel, Methods for driving high-temperature reactions such
forming CO2 and water [63,88,89]. The water is con- as biomass pyrolysis or gasification using solar energy
densed to separate CO2 and send it to storage. This have been developed [96]. The biomass particles are
process exhibits greater potential for CO2 separation rapidly heated in a solar thermal entrainment reactor.
compared to membrane separation of CO2. Metal oxide particles are fed into the reactor concur-
Experimentation and process modeling and simula- rently with the biomass particles, allowing carbo-ther-
tion suggest that a maximum coal-to-hydrogen con- mic reduction of the metal oxide particles by the
version efficiency of 80% can be achieved using coal biomass pyrolysis products. The reduced metal oxide
direct chemical looping [63]. Some problems with this particles react with steam to produce hydrogen in a
process include temperature issues relating to metal subsequent step. Higher conversion efficiencies have
oxide (very high temperatures destabilize the struc- been reported using a variation of this process involv-
ture) and sizing the reactor to control reaction rates ing the solar thermal gasification of corn stover [97].
[63]. Solar gasification is a hybrid of solar and fossil fuel-
Exergy analysis allows meaningful efficiencies and based endothermic processes, in which fossil fuels are
losses to be evaluated for energy systems and corre- used exclusively as the chemical source for hydrogen
sponding design improvements to be identified [90]. production, and concentrated solar radiation as the
Such an analysis suggests that the net power efficiency energy source of high-temperature process heat [98].
of a power generation system incorporating chemical Zedtwitz et al. [99] consider three hybrid solar/fossil-
looping combustion exceeds that of a conventional fuel endothermic processes, in which fossil fuels are
power system by reducing combustion irreversibilities used exclusively as the chemical source for hydrogen
[91]. Of the various metal oxides that can be used for production and concentrated solar radiation as the
the syngas redox process, iron oxide (Fe2O3) was iden- energy source of high-temperature process heat: (1)
tified as permitting the highest conversion of syngas thermal decomposition, (2) steam reforming and (3)
to combustion products (CO2 and water) along with a steam gasification. The exergy efficiency and CO2 miti-
high conversion of steam to hydrogen [92]. gation potential of these processes are determined
Chemical looping with oxygen uncoupling (CLOU) is and compared with those for conventional combus-
a novel method to burn solid fuels in gaseous oxygen tion-based power generation. These hybrid solar
without the need for an energy-intensive air-separa- thermo-chemical processes for hydrogen offer viable
tion unit [93]. The CO2 from combustion is inherently and efficient routes for fossil fuel de-carbonization and
separated from the rest of the flue gases. The reaction CO2 avoidance.
rate of petroleum coke was found to be approximately
50 times higher using CLOU compared to the reaction
Auto-thermal reforming
rate of the same fuel with an iron-based oxygen carrier
in conventional CLC. Hydrogen production from coal-derived methanol via
A method of separating hydrogen from syngas for auto-thermal reforming (ATR) has been reported to
use as a carbon-free energy carrier has been reported have fewer trace impurities than other coal-based
at the lab scale [94]. The process includes hydrogen hydrogen production processes, mainly due to a
enrichment and solids regeneration steps in a fixed- higher operating temperature generated by the oxida-
bed reactor under atmospheric pressure. During the tion step [100]. Coal-based methanol has been shown
enrichment step, syngas and steam are passed through to have higher amounts of trace hydrocarbons than
iron oxide and calcium oxide beds where multiple chemical-grade methanol derived from natural gas, so
reactions occur simultaneously to yield a stream of hydrogen production from coal-derived methanol via
hydrogen. The syngas and steam feeds are then ATR is feasible when considering fuel cell applications.
replaced by air to regenerate the solids, releasing Natural gas and the thermolysis gases from petro-
sequestration-ready carbon dioxide. The effects on leum and coal can be thermally decomposed to manu-
hydrogen purity were investigated of temperature (in facture hydrogen and vapor-deposited carbon
the range of 600–800 C), steam concentration, syngas materials, in the form of nanoparticles, fibrous materi-
concentration, residence time and solids composition. als, or pyrolytic carbon solids [101]. Coal thermolysis
The information obtained was used to optimize the can produce hydrogen from coke oven gas, and
carbon materials from fabricated cokes. The combined preheat fuel. Heat recovery below about 1000 K plays a
manufacture of hydrogen and carbon materials would key role in regenerative cycles. The iodine–sulfur pro-
be economic if the market value of the hydrogen and cess with recirculation of product hydrogen fuel to the
solid carbon materials were greater than the value of combustor is suggested to be the most promising
coal as a fuel. method of low-grade heat regeneration. The basic
requirement for efficient and economic CO2 liquefac-
tion is the combustion in oxygen of the recirculated
Other primary conversion processes
synthetic fuel, the major components of which are CO
Thermo-catalytic decomposition and H2.
A novel process and device have been developed for
CO2-free production of hydrogen and carbon by Low-carbon methods
thermo-catalytic decomposition (dissociation, pyroly- A hydroxide based zero-emission process of hydrogen
sis, cracking) of hydrocarbon fuels over carbon-based production from fossil fuel undergoes a system of reac-
catalysts in the absence of air and/or water [102]. This tions involving hydroxide, carbon, CO, CO2 and water
thermo-catalytic process is claimed to improve the [106]. It provides for a complete sequestration of car-
activity and stability of carbon catalysts during the bon (CO2 and CO) from coal-/natural gas-burning
thermo-catalytic process, and to produce high purity plants. The reaction of CO or CO2 with sodium hydrox-
hydrogen (over 99.0% by volume) and carbon from ide is exothermic and hence no additional heating
any hydrocarbon fuel, including sulfurous fuels such as would be required. The CO or CO2 would react to form
coal. Production of hydrogen and carbon is achieved sodium carbonate and hydrogen, and thus carbon will
by both internal and external activation of carbon be sequestered. The hydrogen produced cheaply with
catalysts. no carbon release in the atmosphere may be used to
synthesize hydrides at low cost.
Waste resource recovery A biomass anaerobic gasification technology for
A process has been developed for solid waste resource hydrogen production is proposed [107] by using cal-
recovery in space [103]. Pyrolysis produces light gases cium oxide (CaO) to convert CO2 into calcium carbon-
(CH4, H2, CO2, CO, H2O, NH3) as the main products, and ate (CaCO3) while producing hydrogen through the
a reactive carbon-rich char as the main by-product. Sig- anaerobic process. The results show that the increase
nificant amounts of liquid products are formed under of CaO can increase the H2 mole fraction in C/H2O reac-
less severe pyrolysis conditions and are cracked almost tion products. When the mole ratio of CaO to carbon
completely to gases as the temperature is raised. ([Ca]/[C]) is 1, H2 concentration achieves the maximum
Hydrogen was found to be a significant constituent value. This process is similar to the lime-enhanced gasi-
among the product gases. fication [62] described earlier.
Gasification and oxidation system

Process application and systems research
A system has been designed for maximizing the gener-
ation of marketable products from a variety of hydro- After all or a majority of a solid feedstock is converted
carbon feedstocks [104]. The hydrocarbon feedstocks to a syngas, additional processes are required to sepa-
are first gasified and then oxidized in a two-chamber rate other gaseous components from the hydrogen in
system, and processed using oxygen gas rather than the syngas. Processes for hydrogen separation from
ambient air. Intermediate gases generated during the syngas and subsequent purification include [108]: ash
process are recirculated to the gasification and oxida- removal, syngas quench/cooling, scrubbing, shift reac-
tion chambers to maximize energy generation and tion (only for air/oxy gasification), heat exchange, sulfur
conversion of reactants to products. In addition to pro- removal, CO2 capture/separation and hydrogen purifi-
ducing heat for use in power generation, the hydrocar- cation through pressure swing adsorption (PSA). These
bon feedstocks are oxidized to pure compounds of are some of the processes currently undergoing
water (via hydrogen production through electrolysis) research to improve performance, especially for large-
and carbon dioxide (which is captured and stored or scale applications. These processes along with gasifica-
sold). tion are the operations that ultimately produce hydro-
gen and other products.
Magneto-hydrodynamic system
Open-cycle magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) electrical
Hydrogen separation and production systems
power generation has been considered as an option
for hydrogen production [105]. A high-efficiency MHD In co-production plants for hydrogen and electricity,
system with regeneration and recirculation of the coal is gasified in an entrained flow gasifier, yielding a
high-temperature exhaust is used to provide heat to synthesis gas. A review by Chiesa et al. [108] reveals
produce chemical energy thermo-chemically and to that most production systems for syngas based on coal
BIOFUELS 735
Figure 4. From gasification of solid fuels, different secondary gas conversion processes yield hydrogen through thermo-chemical
reactions.
gasification follow similar routes. In the system shown removed from the syngas (again using Selexol). After
in Figure 4 the syngas is cooled, cleaned of particulate being stripped from the solvent, the product gas
matter, and converted to primarily H2 and CO2 in all (mainly H2 and CO2) is sent through membranes to
the secondary conversion processes including sour separate CO2 which is dried and compressed to
water-gas shift reactors. The water-gas shift (WGS) pro- 150 bar for pipeline transport and underground stor-
cess toward hydrogen production and CO2 capture is age. High-purity hydrogen (99.999%) is extracted from
outlined in Figure 5. After the WGS process further the hydrogen-rich CO2-depleted gas through a PSA
cooling of product gas ensues; to remove H2S from the process and delivered at 60 bar. This high-purity hydro-
syngas using a physical solvent (Selexol), CO2 is gen gas is compressed and burned in a conventional
Figure 5. From gasification of solid fuels, hydrogen is produced by the widely used route of a water-gas shift process and hydrogen
separation using membranes and pressure swing adsorption.
gas turbine combined cycle, or may be used in a fuel used as an IGCC turbine fuel. Simulation demonstrates
cell, generating electricity as a co-product. that a steam/carbon ratio of 1.5 provides a hydrogen
The hydrogen/electricity ratio may be varied by low- output of 1.15 kg/h while generating about 14 kW of
ering the steam-to-carbon ratio in the syngas or by let- electricity (for every 1 kmol/h of carbon fed to the
ting part of the de-carbonized syngas bypass the PSA reformer) from a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). In this pro-
process. Based on a performance evaluation of state- cess, the portion of the CO generated is used which
of-the-art commercial technology for hydrogen co-pro- was not needed to drive the reforming reactions. Addi-
duction [108], the system converts 57–58% of the coal tionally, recycling up to 25% of the CO2 in the reformer
Lower Heating Value (LHV) to hydrogen, while export- increases hydrogen output by about 15% while using
ing to the grid electricity amounting to 2–6% of coal 20% less CO for combustion to drive the gasification
LHV. In contrast to de-carbonizing coal in IGCC electric- reactions. Because of the Boudouard reaction, product
ity generation, which entails a loss of 6–8 percentage output is increased by 32% (4.5 kW per kmol/h of car-
points of electricity conversion when capturing CO2 as bon) from an SOFC operating on the CO not used for
an alternative to venting it, CO2 capture for hydrogen combustion.
production incurs a minor energy penalty (2 percent- Other innovative concepts for hydrogen production
age points of export electricity). Some of these losses based on coal gasification with CO2 capture have been
are attributable to the number of intermediate pro- reported and compared [112]. The dry feed type of
cesses involved in producing hydrogen from coal, entrained-flow gasifier is currently considered to be
including several for pollution control. the most efficient means of producing hydrogen from
The National Energy Technology Laboratory of the coal. The main shortcomings of this system are rela-
US Department of Energy has compared performance tively low hydrogen purity due to the need to use
and required investments for five systems for indus- nitrogen as a transport gas for the coal, and a pressure
trial-scale gasification [109]. The systems are character- limitation associated with the type of design. Increased
ized by five different products: syngas; hydrogen and purity can be attained by using captured CO2 to trans-
syngas; SNG; syngas-to-electricity; and SNG-to-electric- port the coal in the gasifier, while the pressure limita-
ity. The fuel-only plants have twice the net thermal effi- tion can be overcome by using in-plant compression
ciency of fuel-to-electricity plants, suggesting that of the raw syngas.
hydrogen production from solid fuels should consider
using less product fuel within the system for power
Hydrogen utilization systems
generation (by restricting its use more to process
requirements). The total cost of the facilities including Hydrogen produced from solid fuels can be routed for
operation and maintenance is 60% higher for the fuel- either on-site utilization or storage/supply to hydrogen
to-electricity plants. So producing only hydrogen or markets. The second option is not discussed here. Inves-
syngas better promotes the use of solid fuels. tigations of on-site use of hydrogen for power genera-
Other systems similar to the one shown in Figure 3 tion through combined cycles as well as fuel cells are
for producing hydrogen, electricity and other transport considered here, starting with small-scale integrated
fuels are undergoing research. One in particular is a systems for electricity generation from hydrogen. SOFCs
novel multi-function system with two kinds of fuel and molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) are the most
(coal and natural gas) and two types of products advanced technologies for utilizing the hydrogen pro-
(hydrogen and electricity) [110]. The proposed system duced from solid fuels gasification. These fuel cells can
exploits the complementary properties of coal and nat- operate at high temperatures and are robust to gas poi-
ural gas by integrating steam–methane reforming with soning impurities. Hybrid fuel cell turbines [113] are
coal combustion. Coal is indirectly gasified by combus- other new options for utilizing hydrogen.
tion, eliminating the need for an air separation unit. At A new approach based on coal gasification is
the same time, some of the natural gas fuel, which is reported in which a thermochemical recuperative coal
burned in the reformer, is replaced with coal fuel. The gasification combined cycle (TGCC) is formed by com-
integration of a gasification unit, which is characterized bining thermo-chemical recuperation, brown coal gasifi-
by coal hydro-gasification and carbon dioxide separa- cation and an SOFC [114]. The proposed system
tion, with a power island, where a high-hydrogen-con- consists of four major components: oxygen-blown fluid-
tent syngas is combusted with pure oxygen, has been ized bed gasifier, shift reactor, gas turbine and SOFC.
proposed [111]. The product gases from the gasifier are introduced to
In power plants using gasification as the main pro- the shift reactor to maximize hydrogen production and
cess to generate hydrogen through steam reforming CO2 concentration. Simulation results indicate that the
[52], research is focusing on combining catalytic com- cycle efficiency increases from 39.5% (based on Higher
bustion with coal gasification to generate H2 and CO Heating Value (HHV)) without SOFC to about 45% (HHV)
from coal while yielding sequestration-ready CO2. The with SOFC. The approach of using gasification-based
hydrogen can either be separated from the syngas or hydrogen in fuel cells for electricity generation in
BIOFUELS 737
conjunction with combined cycles is being investigated Integrated processes can create opportunities to
in a program established by the National Energy Tech- improve the use of solid fuels, thereby reducing the
nology Laboratory of the US Department of Energy [33]. associated environmental pollution and helping meet
A conceptual combined heat and power (CHP) growing energy demands. Numerous small-scale inte-
scheme has been presented based on coal gasification grated projects for end uses, such as combined power
and a high-temperature pressurized solid oxide fuel generation with hydrogen production and CO2 cap-
cell as a topping cycle and a bottoming steam power ture, and their benefits have been investigated
cycle [115,116]. Research has revealed that such a plant [24,30,35,108,124]. New energy conversion technolo-
offers substantial fuel savings compared to separate gies are also being developed and adopted due to the
plants for the same power and utility heat. The maxi- potential markets for efficient processes. Gasification
mum fuel energy savings ratio is found to be 30%, for as shown in Figure 3 is one promising conversion pro-
an optimum pressure ratio of about 18 for a cell oper- cess in that it is expected to achieve significantly
ating temperature of 1273 K. Although coal gasification higher efficiencies for coal/biomass conversion to elec-
technology has matured over the years and several tricity and transport fuels [36].
power plants are operating successfully, SOFC technol- Several integrated systems have been proposed
ogy still needs to develop to achieve megawatt output that use various solid fuels (coal, biomass, municipal
levels. Nonetheless, SOFC is expected to perform well solid waste, agricultural and industrial residue) to pro-
with gasification [117]. At lower pressure ratios the duce hydrogen. The systems shown in Figures 3–5
plant yields more process heat at the expense of elec- may be categorized as small-scale system integration
trical output, while at higher pressure ratios the electri- since they involve only one primary conversion process
cal power output of the plant increases and a base (gasification) for attaining the hydrogen.
heat load can still be supported. An example of a large-scale integrated system for
Material and heat balances of integrated coal gasifi- hydrogen production is shown in Figure 6. This flow
cation/molten carbonate fuel cell (IG/MCFC) combined chart is self-explanatory, with three levels of processes,
systems have been developed considering the electric- each interacting with the others to accomplish the
ity-generating performance of practical fuel cells [118]. respective functions. The core idea is to have a central-
Two syngas-utilization routes are evaluated: (1) an IG/ ized hydrogen production facility with various pro-
MCFC system with anode gas recycling and (2) an IG/ cesses, thus integrating advantages and drawbacks of
MCFC system with anode heat exchange. The anode each process to improve efficiency, reduce wastes and,
gas recycling system requires approximately 80% recir- in the long run, create financial benefits.
culation of the anode outlet gas, whereas the anode
heat exchange system requires a fuel gas humidity of Benefits of integration
60%. Fuel utilization in the anode gas recycling system In Figure 6, solid fuels are converted via various indus-
should be set lower than that in the anode heat trial-scale integrated processes to convenient energy
exchange system. forms and ultimately to hydrogen. The benefits of such
systems include the following:
Large-scale system integration
1. Multiple uses of feedstock: Input solid fuels are
The increasing demand in recent years for alternative converted to hydrogen, increasing the efficiency
energy sources and fuels (e.g. hydrogen and synthetic and decreasing waste generation.
fuels) has led to efforts to integrate energy conversion 2. Demand-based production: Since each feedstock
technologies where advantageous. The reaching of has a different market value, a proper blend of
peak oil production in the middle of this decade [119], the cheapest and most efficiently used feed-
and uncertainties in oil prices, which in large part are stocks can be used in order to reduce the operat-
dependent on global demand and economic struc- ing cost as well as to conserve rare fuels.
tures, are prompting many countries to consider effec- 3. Process applicability: Based on the market value
tive uses of local natural resources and appropriate and demand for hydrogen, some of the pro-
energy carriers (especially hydrogen and hydrogen- cesses can be used for producing other products
based fuels) [120,121]. Many countries have initiated such as chemicals, reducing operating costs
research and industrial programs to use integrated while utilizing the full potential of the facility.
energy systems, sometimes in conjunction with exist- 4. Resource availability: Proven coal reserves and
ing energy systems, to produce alternative fuels potentially consistent biomass supplies
[7,8,11,12]. Combined power and hydrogen production [7,8,11,12], as well as the challenges associated
(CPH) systems [122,123] are designed to co-generate with solid waste disposal (e.g. lack of landfills,
electricity within the gasification system by the steam special needs depending on the nature of waste),
power system, which provides some steam for gasifica- contribute to sustainability by being flexible in
tion while the rest generated electricity. terms of allowable feedstocks.
Figure 6. Large-scale process integration for hydrogen production: the aim of the current review is to emphasize three levels of
processes – (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) environmental protection – that transform water into hydrogen using energy from
solid fuels.
5. Proven technologies: The processes considered including thermodynamic, material, economic, envi-
have been tested or proven in industry so as to ronmental, market and optimization. These stages
ensure high efficiency and low pollution with should detail the benefits of implementing such a sys-
optimized performance. tem into the existing energy infrastructure. The multi-
6. Opportunities: When combining several pro- product and integrated nature of the system enables
cesses for multiple products, the opportunities efficient use of coal, biomass and municipal solid waste
are provided for improving and developing new in producing electricity, hydrogen and chemicals
processes. simultaneously, thereby contributing to making energy
7. Centralized pollution control: Integration some- systems more sustainable.
times provides a major advantage by permitting
centralized pollution control, which can increase
Economic evaluation of hydrogen production
the capture efficiency for many pollutants, e.g.
using solid fuels
SO2, NOx, CO2.
Gasification has been proven to be the most advanta-
Challenges in large-scale system integration geous conversion process for the initial stages of a
Integration poses several challenges including poten- hydrogen production facility. However, for gasification
tial incompatibility of processes, and the need for addi- to play a major role in the near future, capital and oper-
tional accessory units that increase costs and reduce ating cost must be reduced and reliability and perfor-
overall system efficiency. The demand for hydrogen is mance improved [1]. There are currently several
not yet large, in part because infrastructure for hydro- research and industrial development projects world-
gen is not yet widely available. Much of the public and wide on IGCC and integrated gasification fuel cell
the media view coal as ‘dirty’ based on data from exist- (IGFC) systems [124]. In such systems, there is a need
ing power plants, which lack the pollution control to integrate complex unit operations including gasif-
capable of achieving near-zero emissions, confusing iers, gas separation and cleaning units, water gas shift
information and lack of awareness about cleaner tech- reactors, turbines, heat exchangers, steam generators
nologies for using solid fuels. The system schematized and fuel cells. IGFC systems tested in the US, Europe
in Figure 6 will involve various stages of analysis, and Japan employing gasifiers (types include Texaco,
BIOFUELS 739
Lurgi and Eagle) and fuel cells have resulted in energy Energy-conversion efficiencies are greatest for natu-
conversions at efficiency of 47.5% (HHV), which is ral gas-based systems due to the fuel's characteristics.
much higher than the 30–35% efficiency of conven- The costs of hydrogen production for natural gas and
tional coal-fired power generation. IGCC and IGFC are coal/biomass are much lower than for electrolysis
currently not viable economically compared with cur- (which presently has only a 4% market share) due to
rent coal-utilization technologies, but further efficiency the volume of production (which is much higher for
improvements and reductions in gaseous pollutant hydrogen from fossil fuels) and the mature state of the
emissions could render the technologies more com- technology. A comparison of efficiencies and costs for
petitive. Hydrogen produced from coal-based gasifica- various hydrogen production methods [124] shows
tion has recently been shown to be competitive with steam reforming of natural gas to be the most benefi-
production from natural gas provided the cost of natu- cial, with high efficiencies (65 to 75% based on LHV)
ral gas remains above US$4/106 Btu, and the reliability and low production costs (5 to 8 US$/GJ). Gasification
of gasification-based processes can be demonstrated of biomass and coal has an overall efficiency of 42 to
to be high [35]. These authors suggest that the cost of 47% (LHV) with an average production cost at 9 to 13
producing hydrogen from coal could be reduced by US$/GJ, while water electrolysis has the lowest effi-
25–50%, even with the capture and sequestration of ciency (35 to 42% HHV) and highest production cost
CO2. (on average 20 US$/GJ).
Gasification promises to be a better use of biomass
than combustion, but a comprehensive economic anal-
Cost of hydrogen production: impact of CO2
ysis of biomass gasification systems suggests that the
capture on various technologies
costs of plant construction are high compared with
conventional plants, while there are environmental The costs of hydrogen production with coal-based
benefits [125,126]. Hence, an appropriate business technologies are compared with those for established
model may be available in the future. technologies in Figure 7. With current technologies,
Figure 7. Total costs of hydrogen production (in US$ per GJ hydrogen) with CO2 valued at US$15/tonne, for various production pro-
cesses. Costs for solid fuel technologies are highlighted. Adapted from SDTC [127]. SMR: Steam-Methane Reforming; PSA: Pressure
Swing Adsorption; ATR: Auto-Thermal Reforming
large-scale hydrogen production can be attained with production with 90% CO2 capture at efficiencies of 73%
steam methane reforming (SMR) and coal gasification for ATR and 69% for coal gasification [24,25]. Investment
with CO2 capture from the shifted syngas, resulting in costs for these systems are estimated at nearly 300 and
a CO2 capture efficiency of 85–90% [24,25]. The conver- 600 €/kWh, resulting in hydrogen costs of 8.1 and 6.4
sion efficiency, including electricity inputs and outputs €/GJ and CO2 avoidance costs of 13 and 5 €/t CO2 for
in primary terms, is 73% for SMR and 59–62% for coal ATR and coal gasification, respectively. A membrane
gasification. Investment costs are approximately 550 reformer enables small-scale hydrogen production with
and 840 €/kWh for 1000 MWh SMR and coal gasifica- relatively low-cost CO2 capture. A 2 MWh plant may
tion plants, respectively. The costs of hydrogen pro- achieve efficiencies of 65% and investment costs of
duced by SMR are dominated by fuel and feed costs, around 600 €/kWh (including hydrogen compression to
which makes coal gasification more favorable, espe- 480 bar), resulting in a hydrogen cost of nearly 17 €/GJ,
cially if energy prices rise increasingly. Hydrogen pro- considering gas and electricity prices for small industrial
duction costs for SMR are estimated at 9.5 €/GJ and an users. Although the desire to reduce CO2 emissions and
optimally designed coal gasification plant with electric- capture emitted CO2 is widespread at present, the
ity export may reach 7 €/GJ. CO2 avoidance costs com- investment cost for solid fuels-based hydrogen produc-
pared to identical plants without CO2 capture are 23 tion will likely remain the main hurdle.
and 5 €/t of CO2 for SMR and coal gasification, respec-
tively. The penalty for CO2 capture is compared in
Comparison of hydrogen production: efficiency
Figure 8 with other hydrogen production technologies,
and overall costs
based on data compiled by Sustainable Development
Technology Canada (SDTC) [127]. The rectangular When carbon sequestration is coupled with natural-gas
boxes in Figures 7 and 8 identify processes relating to steam reforming or coal gasification for hydrogen pro-
hydrogen production using solid fuels. duction, a 14 to 16% increase in the production cost of
Advanced large-scale ATR and coal gasification sys- hydrogen is expected [128]. Hydrogen production
tems with ion-transfer membranes enable hydrogen costs will decrease for coal and biomass once a market
Figure 8. Unit CO2 emissions (in kg per GJ hydrogen), for various hydrogen production processes. Emissions for solid fuel technolo-
gies and their challenges are highlighted. Adapted from SDTC [127]. SMR: Steam-Methane Reforming; PSA: Pressure Swing Adsorp-
tion; ATR: Auto-Thermal Reforming
BIOFUELS 741
Table 1. Comparison of hydrogen production for different feedstocks.*

Parameter Feedstock for hydrogen production process
Natural gas Coal
Without CO2 capture With CO2 capture Without CO2 capture With CO2 capture Biomass
Overall efficiency (%) 80 75 55 65 55
Specific capital investment (€/kWth) 333 380 834 745 932
Specific operating and maintenance costs (€/kWth) 18 43 38 79 39
Feedstock costs (€/GJ) 5.4 5.4 2.1 2.1 4.27
H2 production costs: 8.6 10.0 8.6 10.5 12.0
present (€/GJ)
H2 production costs: 2020 (€/GJ) 10.1 11.1 8.4 8.7 10.2
*Conversion of coal and biomass to hydrogen is via gasification.
Data are compiled from Langer et al. [6].
is established, likely as shown in Table 1 but with cur- from solid fuels suggests that potential exists for signif-
rent data compared with data for the year 2020. Natu- icant improvements in applications of existing pro-
ral gas is presently the most advantageous feedstock cesses in different ways:
in terms of efficiency, CO2 capture, hydrogen produc-
tion costs, capital investment and specific operation Gasification is an established primary conversion
and maintenance costs [6]. Coal is superior to biomass, process for producing hydrogen from solid fuels,
with lower capital costs, feedstock costs and availability and research is ongoing in terms of design,
and hydrogen production costs. But it has higher oper- modeling, optimization and market applications.
ating costs when coupled with CO2 capture. With CO2 Some processes have significant applications in
capture, the investment cost decreases for coal due to energy markets, including those that use plasma,
the integration of various processes. Projected hydro- supercritical water and ultra-superheated steam
gen production costs based on direct conversion con- for gasification, as well as solar-thermal process
cepts for 2020 have been provided [6]. The for direct dissociation of carbon and hydrogen
comparison is made for the following processes: natu- from solid fuels.
ral gas steam reforming conventional small-scale Several system-integration projects have been
(NGSRS) at 22 €/GJ; natural gas steam reforming con- proposed and tested based on the applicability of
ventional large-scale with carbon capture (NGSTLCC) associated processes to increase hydrogen pro-
at 11 €/GJ; conventional coal gasification large-scale duction and improve overall system productivity
(CCGL) at 10 €/GJ; conventional coal gasification large- with additional products.
scale with carbon capture (CCGLCC) at 11 €/GJ; Breakthrough conversion technologies or pro-
advanced coal gasification large-scale with carbon cap- cesses that differ fundamentally from those used
ture (ACGLCC) at 9 €/GJ; and biomass gasification at present, and that can increase efficiency by
large-scale (BGL) at 10 €/GJ. more than 10 to 15%, do not yet exist at research
There is increased realization and agreement by or commercial levels. The reason for this conclu-
countries around the world [129] that the global warm- sion is that energy research efforts are wide-
ing caused by CO2 gas emissions needs to be curtailed spread, with the focus on core technologies
to avoid a rise in the Earth's surface temperature of driven by market interests and demand.
more than 2 C. Much of the CO2 emitted comes from The requirements for alternative transportation
the combustion of coal. Coal is tied to the national fuel sources, clean and sustainable energy sources
energy and economic security of many developing for power generation, and less dependence on
countries, so their immediate short-term option is to outside markets will likely in the near future drive
adopt the advanced processes listed in this paper, increased research and development into new
such as gasification at large scale, to capture and conversion processes. Circumstances at the pres-
sequester CO2 and to do it in an economically feasible ent time appear adequate for promoting the rapid
manner. While doing that, the co-use of a carbon-neu- development of fundamentally different technolo-
tral feedstock such as biomass, although it lowers effi- gies for the conversion of solid fuels to hydrogen.
ciency [130], would reduce the total amount of carbon Pressure is increasing on governments, industry,
emitted. This helps in further reducing costs in jurisdic- investors and researchers to find alternatives.
tions where a carbon tax scheme or cap-and-trade sys-
tem has been established. A major shift is expected over the next few years in
the way research is performed on the conversion of
solid fuels into various energy forms, in that hydrogen
Conclusions
will likely receive the highest priority. Some research
The review reported here of selected recent research directions for converting solid fuels to hydrogen likely
and development efforts on hydrogen production to receive attention include:
direct conversion of solid fuels to hydrogen, and hydrogen economy for the short and medium term.
determining ways to reduce the number of steps Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2007;32:3797–3810.
in the processes; [7] Asif M, Muneer T. Energy supply, its demand and secu-
rity issues for developed and emerging economies.
decreasing exergy losses and destruction for pro-
Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2007;11:1388–1413.
cesses and systems, and finding ways in process [8] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy
designs to make exergy use more efficient; Agency; 2008. Accessible at: www.worldenergyout-
sizing process units to reduce waste heat and look.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2008.pdf
entropy creation, while maintaining performance; [9] British Petroleum. BP statistical review of world energy.
2003.
and
[10] DOE. Energy information agency. International energy
improving or optimizing system integration, outlook. U.S. Department of Energy. 2005. Available
accounting for convenient installation (closeness from: www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html
to resource location is preferred for municipal [11] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris: International
solid waste and landfills), low capital costs, low Energy Agency; 2006.
operating and maintenance costs, low emissions [12] IEA. World Energy Outlook 2007. Paris: International
Energy Agency; 2007.
and comparable overall efficiencies (higher than [13] Stringfellow T, Beaumont L. Why Should Used Tires Be
those of existing plants is preferred). Considered as a Renewable Energy Source? Proceed-
ings on compact disc of the Alternative Energy Sympo-
The cost of hydrogen from solid fuels is expected to sium 2008, Chicago State University, Chicago IL.
become competitive and may become lower than October 2 and 3; 2008.
[14] Aznar MP, Caballero MA, Sancho JA, et al. Plastic waste
other sources, based on an adequate hydrogen infra-
elimination by co-gasification with coal and biomass in
structure and combined research efforts from the aca- fluidized bed with air in pilot plant. Fuel Process Tech-
demic and industrial work force. nol. 2006;87:409–420.
The information amalgamated here provides a useful [15] USEPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
resource and may aid researchers pursuing advanced and Sinks: 1990-2006. U.S. Environmental Protection
methods for hydrogen production from solid fuels. Agency, Washington, DC, April 15; 2008.
[16] Moriarty P, Honnery D. Intermittent renewable energy:
The only future source of hydrogen? Int J Hydrogen
Acknowledgements Energ. 2007;32:1616–1624.
[17] Harrabin R. 2008. Germany leads ‘clean coal’ pilot. BBC
The authors kindly acknowledge the financial support pro- News, Sept. 3. Accessed Nov. 4, 2008 at http://news.
vided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm
Council of Canada. [18] Pennline HW, Luebke DR, Jones KL, et al. Progress in
carbon dioxide capture and separation research for
gasification-based power generation point sources.
Disclosure statement Fuel Process Technol. 2008;89:897–907.
[19] Higman C, Burgt MVD. Gasification. New York: Elsevier;
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. 2003.
[20] Rezaiyan J, Cheremisinoff NP. Gasification technolo-
gies: A primer for engineers and scientists. London:
Funding Taylor and Francis; 2005.
[21] Chmielniak T, Sciazko M. Co-gasification of biomass
Funding was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
and coal for methanol synthesis. Appl Energ.
ing Research Council of Canada.
2003;74:393–403.
[22] Mozaffarian M, Zwart RWR, Boerrigter H, et al. “Green
Gas” as SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas): A renewable fuel
References
with conventional quality. In: Bridgwater AV Boocock
[1] Collot A-G. Matching gasification technologies to coal DGB, editors. Science in thermal and chemical biomass
properties. Int J Coal Geol. 2006;65:191–212. conversion. Vol. 2, CPL Press; 2006.
[2] Rosen MA. The prospects for renewable energy [23] Muradov NZ, Veziroglu TN. “Green” path from fossil-
through hydrogen energy systems. J Power Energ Eng. based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-
2015;3(4):373–377. neutral technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2008;33
[3] Rosen MA, Koohi-Fayegh S. The prospects for hydro- (23):6804–6839.
gen as an energy carrier: an overview of hydrogen [24] Damen K, Troost MV, Faaij A, et al. A comparison of
energy and hydrogen energy systems. Energ, Ecol electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2
Environ. 2016;1(1):10–29. capture and storage. Part A: Review and selection of
[4] Collot A-G. Prospects for hydrogen from coal. Report promising conversion and capture technologies. Prog-
CCC/78, Clean Coal Centre, International Energy ress Energ Combust. 2006;32:215–246.
Agency; 2003. [25] Damen K, Troost MV, Faaij A, et al. A comparison of
[5] Marban G, Valdes-Solıs T. Towards the hydrogen econ- electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2
omy? Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2007;32:1625–1637. capture and storage. Part B: Chain analysis of promis-
[6] Langer FM, Tzimas E, Kaltschmitt M. Techno-economic ing CCS options. Prog Energ Combust. 2007;33:580–
assessment of hydrogen production processes for the 609.
BIOFUELS 743
[26] Furimsky E. Gasification of oil sand coke: Review. Fuel [44] Pei P, Kulkarni M. Modeling of ultra superheated steam
Process Technol. 1998;56:263–290. gasification in integrated gasification combined cycle
[27] Kirubakaran V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Nalini R, et al. A power plant with carbon dioxide capture. Proceedings
review on gasification of biomass. Renew Sustain of ES2008 Energy Sustainability 2008 August 10-14,
Energ Rev. 2009;13:179–186. 2008, Jacksonville, Florida USA, paper 54325; 2008.
[28] Saxena RC, Seal D, Kumar S, et al. Thermo-chemical [45] Gasafi E, Meyer L, Schebek L. Exergetic efficiency and
routes for hydrogen rich gas from biomass: A review. options for improving sewage sludge gasification in
Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2008a;12:1909–1927. supercritical water. Int J Energ Res. 2007;31:346–363.
[29] Valero A, Uson S. Oxy-co-gasification of coal and bio- [46] Yoshida Y, Dowaki K, Matsumura Y, et al. Comprehen-
mass in an integrated gasification combined cycle sive comparison of efficiency and CO2 emissions
(IGCC) power plant. Energy. 2006;31:1643–1655. between biomass energy conversion technologies—
[30] Turner J, Sverdrup G, Mann MK, et al. Renewable position of supercritical water gasification in biomass
hydrogen production. Int J Energ Res. 2008;32:379– technologies. Biomass Bioenerg. 2003;25:257–272.
407. [47] Li Y, Guo L, Zhang X, et al. Hydrogen production from
[31] Bargigli S, Raugei M, Ulgiati S. Comparison of thermo- coal gasification in supercritical water with a continu-
dynamic and environmental indexes of natural gas, ous flowing system. Int J Hydrogen Energ.
syngas and hydrogen production processes. Energy. 2010;35:3036–3045.
2004;29:2145–2159. [48] Jin H, Chen Y, Ge Z, et al. Hydrogen production by
[32] Lior N. Energy resources and use: The present situation Zhundong coal gasification in supercritical water. Int J
and possible paths to the future. Energy. 2008;33:842– Hydrogen Energ. 2015;40(46):16096–16103.
857. [49] Galvita V, Messerle VE, Ustimenko AB. Hydrogen pro-
[33] DOE. Hydrogen from coal program: Research, Develop- duction by coal plasma gasification for fuel cell tech-
ment and Demonstration Plan for the Period 2007 nology. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2007;32:3899–3906.
through 2016. National Energy Technology Laboratory, [50] Mountouris A, Voutsas E, Tassios E. Plasma gasification
Office of Fossil Energy, US Department of Energy, Sep- of sewage sludge: Process development and energy
tember; 2007. Available from: http://www.netl.doe. optimization. Energ Convers Manage. 2008;49:2264–
gov/technologies/hydrogençcleançfuels/refshelf/ 2271.
pubs/External [51] Carabin P, Gagnon J-R. Plasma gasification and vitrifi-
çH2çfromçCoalçRDDçPlançSeptemberç13.pdf cation of ash-conversion of ash into glass-like products
[34] Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Effects of various gasi- and syngas. Proc. 2007 World of Coal Ash (WOCA), May
fication parameters and operating conditions on syn- 7-10, Covington, Kentucky; 2007.
gas and hydrogen production. Chem Eng Res Des. [52] Castaldi MJ, Dooher JP. Investigation into a catalytically
2016;115(Part A):1–18. controlled reaction gasifier (CCRG) for coal to hydro-
[35] Stiegel GJ, Ramezan M. Hydrogen from coal gasifica- gen. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2007;32:4170–4179.
tion: An economical pathway to a sustainable energy [53] Wang LQ, Dun YH, Xiang XN, et al. Thermodynamic
future. Int J Coal Geol. 2006;65:173–190. research on hydrogen production from biomass and
[36] Beer JM. Combustion technology developments in coal co-gasification with catalyst. Int J Hydrogen Energ.
power generation in response to environmental chal- 2011;36(18):11676–11683.
lenges. Prog Energ Combust. 2000;26:301–327. [54] Wu Y, Wang J, Shiyong W, et al. Potassium-catalyzed
[37] Liu G-S, Niksa S. Coal conversion submodels for design steam gasification of petroleum coke for H2 produc-
applications at elevated pressures. Part II. Char gasification: Reactivity, selectivity and gas release. Fuel Process
tion. Prog Energ Combust. 2004;30:679–717. Technol. 2011;92:523–530.
[38] Trapp B. Coal gasification: When does it make sense? [55] Wu S.-Y, Huang S, Wu Y.-Q, et al. The reactivity and H2
Presented at Power-Gen International Conference, production characteristics of petroleum coke-steam
IGCC session, Las Vegas, Nevada; 2005. Available from: gasification catalyzed by potassium salts. Energ Source.
www.gasification.org/Docs/Penwell%202005/Eastman. 2014;36:184–190.
pdf [56] Lv P, Yuan Z, Wu C, et al. Bio-syngas production from
[39] Almahdi M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Analysis and assess- biomass catalytic gasification. Energ Convers Manage.
ment of methanol production by integration of carbon 2007;48:1132–1139.
capture and photocatalytic hydrogen production. Int J [57] Sugiyama S, Suzuki N, Kato Y. Gasification performance
Greenh Gas Con. 2016;51:56–70. of coals using high temperature air. Energy.
[40] Nagato S, Oshita T, Miyoshi M, et al. Fluidized bed gasi- 2005;30:399–413.
fication and combustion furnace. US Patent No. [58] Yoshikawa K. R&D (Research and Development) on dis-
7,285,144 B2, October 23. 2007. tributed power generation from solid fuels. Energy.
[41] Muller S, Stidl M, Proll T, et al. Hydrogen from biomass: 2006;31:1656–1665.
large-scale hydrogen production based on a dual fluid- [59] Young L, Pian CCP. High-temperature, air-blown gasifi-
ized bed steam gasification system. Biomass Conv. Bio- cation of dairy-farm wastes for energy production.
ref. 2011;1:55–61. Energy. 2003;28:655–672.
[42] DOE. Gasification: Reference Shelf - System Studies. [60] Sorace V. Process and apparatus for the production of
National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Depart- hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the gasification of
ment of Energy; 2000. Available from: http://www.netl. raw materials. US Patent No. 7,247,293 B2. July 24.
doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/sys 2007.
tem-studies.html [61] Dueck R, Wierzbowski MG. Biomass gasification sys-
[43] Lewis FM. Generation of an ultra-superheated steam tem. US Patent No. 7,228,806 B2, June 12. 2007.
composition and gasification therewith. US Patent No. [62] Weimer T, Berger R, Hawthorne C, et al. Lime enhanced
7,229,483 B2, June 12. 2007. gasification of solid fuels: Examination of a process for
simultaneous hydrogen production and CO2 capture. bed two-stage process. Bioresource Technol.
Fuel. 2008b;87:1678–1686. 2016;206:93–98.
[63] Fan L, Li F, Ramkumar S. Utilization of chemical looping [82] Yakaboylu O, Albrecht I, Harinck J, et al. Supercritical
strategy in coal gasification processes. Particuology. water gasification of biomass in fluidized bed: First
2008;6:131–142. results and experiences obtained from TU Delft/Gen-
[64] €ll T, Romeo LM. Lime enhanced biomass
Martınez A, Pro sos semi-pilot scale setup. Biomass Bioenerg. 2016; In
gasification. Energy penalty reduction by solids pre- Press.
heating in the calciner. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2012;37 [83] Moustakas K, Fatta D, Malamis S, et al. Demonstration
(20):15086–15095. plasma gasification/vitrification system for effective
[65] Gnanapragasam NV, Reddy BV, Rosen MA. Hydrogen hazardous waste treatment. J Hazard Mater. 2005;123
production using solid fuels. Chapter 4 in: Handbook (1-3):120–126.
of Hydrogen Energy, edited by Sherif SA Goswami DY [84] Pio DT, Tarelho LAC, Matos MAA. Characteristics of the
Lee Stefanakos EK Steinfeld A. CRC Press; 2014. p. 61– gas produced during biomass direct gasification in an
112. Available from:http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/ autothermal pilot-scale bubbling fluidized bed reactor.
abs/10.1201/b17226-7 Energy. 2016; in Press.
[66] Wall TF. Combustion processes for carbon capture. [85] Khan Z, Yusup S, Ahmad MM, et al. Integrated catalytic
Proc Combusti Inst. 2007;31:31–47. adsorption (ICA) steam gasification system for
[67] Corella J, Toledo JM, Molina G. Calculation of the con- enhanced hydrogen production using palm kernel
ditions to get less than 2 g tar/mn3 in a fluidized bed shell. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2014;39(7):3286–3293.
biomass gasifier. Fuel Process Technol. 2006;87:841– [86] Duerr M, Gair S, Cruden A. Hydrogen and electrical
846. energy from organic waste treatment. Int J Hydrogen
[68] Yun Y, Yoo YD, Chung SW. Selection of IGCC candidate Energ. 2007;32:705–709.
coals by pilot-scale gasifier operation. Fuel Process [87] Ishida M, Jin H. Chemical-looping combustion power
Technol. 2007;88:107–116. generation plant system. Patent number:
[69] Moghtaderi B. Effects of controlling parameters on pro- US005447024A. 1995.
duction of hydrogen by catalytic steam gasification of [88] Jin H, Ishida M. A new type of coal gas fueled chemical-
biomass at low temperatures. Fuel. 2007;86:2422– looping combustion. Fuel. 2004;83:2411–2417.
2430. [89] Yu J, Corripio AB, Harrison DP, et al. Analysis of the sor-
[70] Van Rossum G, Potic B, Kersten SRA, et al. Catalytic gas- bent energy transfer system (SETS) for power genera-
ification of dry and wet biomass. Catal Today. 2008;145 tion and CO2 capture. Adv Environ Res. 2003;7:335–
(1-2):10–18. 345.
[71] Watanabe H, Otaka M. Numerical simulation of coal [90] Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy: Energy, Environment and
gasification in entrained flow coal gasifier. Fuel. Sustainable Development. 2d ed. Oxford (UK): Elsevier;
2006;85:1935–1943. 2013.
[72] Gerun L, Paraschiv M, Vijeu R, et al. Numerical investi- [91] Anheden M, Svedberg G. Exergy analysis of chemical-
gation of the partial oxidation in a two-stage down- looping combustion systems. Energ Convers Manage.
draft gasifier. Fuel. 2008;87:1383–1393. 1998;39(16-18):1967–1980.
[73] Ross D, Noda R, Horio M, et al. Axial gas profiles in a [92] Gupta P, Velazquez-Vargas LG, Fan L-S. Syngas Redox
bubbling fluidised bed biomass gasifier. Fuel. (SGR) process to produce hydrogen from coal derived
2007;86:1417–1429. syngas. Energ Fuel. 2007;21:2900–2908.
[74] Saravanakumar A, Haridasan TM, Reed TB, et al. Experi- [93] Mattisson T, Lyngfelt A, Leion H. Chemical-looping with
mental investigation and modelling study of long stick oxygen uncoupling for combustion of solid fuels. Int J
wood gasification in a top lit updraft fixed bed gasifier. Greenh Gas Con. 2008;3(1):11–19.
Fuel. 2007;86:2846–2856. [94] Campen A, Mondal K, Wiltowski T. Separation of hydro-
[75] Song T, Wu J, Shen L, et al. Experimental investigation gen from syngas using a regenerative system. Int J
on hydrogen production from biomass gasification in Hydrogen Energ. 2008;33:332–339.
interconnected fluidized beds. Biomass Bioenerg. [95] Nandy A, Loha C, Gu S, et al. Present status and over-
2012;36:258–267. view of Chemical Looping Combustion technology.
[76] Wang Z, Zhou J, Wang Q, et al. Thermodynamic equi- Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2016;59:597–619.
librium analysis of hydrogen production by coal based [96] Weimer AW, Perkins C, Mejic D, et al. Rapid solar ther-
on coal/CaO/H2O gasification system. Int J Hydrogen mal conversion of biomass to syngas. US Patent Appli-
Energ. 2006;31:945–952. cation No. US 2008/0086946 A1, April 17. 2008a.
[77] Mahishi MR, Goswami DY. Thermodynamic optimiza- [97] Perkins CM, Woodruff B, Andrews L, et al. Synthesis gas
tion of biomass gasifier for hydrogen production. Int J production by rapid solar thermal gasification of corn
Hydrogen Energ. 2007;32:3831–3840. stover. Proc. 14th Biennial CSP SolarPACES (Solar
[78] Cohce MK, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy anal- Power and Chemical Energy Systems) Symposium,
yses of a biomass-based hydrogen production system. March 4-7, Las Vegas, Nevada; 2008.
Bioresource Technol. 2011a;102(18):8466–8474. [98] Zedtwitz PV, Steinfeld A. The solar thermal gasification
[79] Cohce MK, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Efficiency evaluation of of coal: Energy conversion efficiency and CO2 mitiga-
a biomass gasification-based hydrogen production. Int tion potential. Energy. 2003;28:441–456.
J Hydrogen Energ. 2011b;36(17):11388–11398. [99] Zedtwitz PV, Petrasch J, Steinfeld A. Hydrogen produc-
[80] Hosseini M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Steam and air fed bio- tion via the solar thermal decarbonization of fossil
mass gasification: comparisons based on energy and fuels. Sol Energy. 2006;80:1333–1337.
exergy. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2012;37(21):16446– [100] Yoon HC, Erickson PA. Hydrogen from coal-derived
16452. methanol via auto-thermal reforming processes. Int J
[81] Zeng X, Shao R, Wang F, et al. Industrial demonstration Hydrogen Energ. 2008;33:57–63.
plant for the gasification of herb residue by fluidized
BIOFUELS 745
[101] Halloran JW. Extraction of hydrogen from fossil fuels (SOFC) for sustainable development. Renew Sustain
with production of solid carbon materials. Int J Hydro- Energ Rev. 2008;12:1251–1276.
gen Energ. 2008;33:2218–2224. [118] Yoshiba F, Izaki Y, Watanabe T. System calculation of
[102] Muradov NZ. Thermocatalytic process for CO2-free pro- integrated coal gasification/molten carbonate fuel cell
duction of hydrogen and carbon from hydrocarbons. combined cycle: Reflection of electricity generating
US Patent No. 7,157,167 B1, January 2. 2007. performances of practical cell. J Power Sources.
[103] Serio MA, Kroo E, Wojtowicz MA, et al. Pyrolysis proc- 2004;132:52–58.
essing for producing fuel gas. US Patent No. 7,241,323 [119] Clarke D. The battle for barrels: Peak oil, yths and world
B2. July 10. 2007. oil futures. London: Profile Books; 2007
[104] Clark SL. Reduced emission gasification and oxidation [120] Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future
of hydrocarbon materials for hydrogen and oxygen Hydrogen Production and Use. The hydrogen econ-
extraction. US Patent Application No.: US 2008/ omy: Opportunities, costs, barriers, and R&D needs.
0078122 A1. April 3. 2008. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division
[105] Kayukawa N. Open-cycle magneto-hydrodynamic elec- on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National
trical power generation: A review and future perspec- Research Council and National Academy of Engineer-
tives. Prog Energ Combust. 2004;30:33–60. ing; 2004.
[106] Saxena SK, Drozd D, Durygin A. A fossil-fuel based rec- [121] Uhrig RE, Schultz KR, Bogart SL. Implementing the
ipe for clean energy. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2008b;33 “hydrogen economy” with synfuels. The Bent of Tau
(14):3625–3631. Beta Pi, Summer:18-23; 2007.
[107] Guan J, Wang Q, Li X, et al. Thermodynamic analysis of [122] Cicconardi SP, Perna A, Spazzafumo G. Combined
a biomass anaerobic gasification process for hydrogen power and hydrogen production from coal. Part B:
production with sufficient CaO. Renew Energ. Comparison between the IGHP and CPH systems. Int J
2007;32:2502–2515. Hydrogen Energ. 2008;33:4397–4404.
[108] Chiesa P, Consonni S, Kreutz T, et al. Co-production of [123] Perna A. Combined power and hydrogen production
hydrogen, electricity and CO2 from coal with commer- from coal. Part A: Analysis of IGHP plants. Int J Hydro-
cially ready technology. Part A: Performance and emis- gen Energ. 2008;33:2957–2964.
sions. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2005;30:747–767. [124] Shoko E, McLellan B, da Costa D. Hydrogen from coal:
[109] Bartone LM, White J. Industrial size gasification for syn- Production and utilisation technologies. Int J Coal
gas, substitute natural gas and power production. Geol. 2006;65:213–222.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Depart- [125] Dowaki K, Mori S, Fukushima C, et al. A comprehensive
ment of Energy. DOE/NETL-401/040607; 2007. economic analysis of biomass gasification systems.
[110] Jin H, Xu Y, Lin R, et al. A proposal for a novel multi- Electr Eng Jpn. 2005;153(3):52–63.
functional energy system for the production of hydro- [126] Ozbilen A, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Comparative environ-
gen and power. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 2008;33:9–19. mental impact and efficiency assessment of selected
[111] Calabro A, Deiana P, Fiorini P, et al. Possible optimal hydrogen production methods. Environ Impact Assess-
configurations for the ZECOMIX high efficiency zero ment Rev. 2013;42:1–9.
emission hydrogen and power plant. Energy. [127] SDTC. Renewable fuel – hydrogen. SD Business Case,
2008;33:952–962. Version 1, Sustainable Development Technology Can-
[112] Cormos C-C, Starr F, Tzimas E, et al. Innovative con- ada, November. 2006. Available from: http://sdtc.ca/
cepts for hydrogen production processes based on en/knowledge/RenewableFuel-Hydrogen.pdf
coal gasification with CO2 capture. Int J Hydrogen [128] Tzimas E, Peteves SD. The impact of carbon sequestra-
Energ. 2008;33:1286–1294. tion on the production cost of electricity and hydrogen
[113] Winkler W, Nehter P, Williams MC, et al. General fuel from coal and natural-gas technologies in Europe in
cell hybrid synergies and hybrid system testing status. the medium term. Energy. 2005;30:2672–2689.
J Power Sources. 2006;159:656–666. [129] COP 21. 21st Conference of the Parties of the United
[114] Kuchonthara P, Bhattacharya S, Tsutsumi A. Combina- Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
tion of thermochemical recuperative coal gasification 2015. Agreement adopted in Paris on 12 December 15.
cycle and fuel cell for power generation. Fuel. Available from:http://unfccc.int/parisçagreement/
2005;84:1019–1021. items/9485.php
[115] Ghosh S, De S. Energy analysis of a cogeneration plant [130] Muresan M, Cormos C-C, Agachi P-S. Techno-economi-
using coal gasification and solid oxide fuel cell. Energy. cal assessment of coal and biomass gasification-based
2006a;31:345–363. hydrogen production supply chain system. Chem Eng
[116] Ghosh S, De S. Exergy analysis of a cogeneration plant Res Des. 2013;91(8):1527–1541.
using coal gasification and solid oxide fuel cell. Int J [131] Gnanapragasam NV, Reddy BV, Rosen MA. Solid fuels
Energ Res. 2006b;30:647–658. based integrated hydrogen production. Poster presen-
[117] Seitarides Th, Athanasiou C, Zabaniotou A. Modular tation at Ontario Centers of Excellence – Discovery
biomass gasification-based solid oxide fuel cells 2008, May 12-13, 2008. Toronto ON, Canada; 2008.

A Review of Hydrogen Production Using Coal Biomass and Other Solid Fuels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Hydrogen Production Using Coal Biomass and Other Solid Fuels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Hydrogen Production Using Coal Biomass and Other Solid Fuels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biofuels

ISSN: 1759-7269 (Print) 1759-7277 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbfu20

A review of hydrogen production using coal,

N.V. Gnanapragasam & M.A. Rosen

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1302662

Published online: 28 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 385

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Introduction as shown in Figure 1, which compares a conven-

Hydrogen energy Note that although the comparison in Figure 1

CONTACT M.A. Rosen [email protected]

increase due to limited reserves, production losses are

Solid fuels: supply and utilization

Fossil fuels Renewable Nuclear

Thermal Photo- Photo-

* Processes generating electricity likely supply hydrogen production via electrolysis.

Building Transpor- Industrial Power

Gasiﬁcation and oxidation system

Table 1. Comparison of hydrogen production for different feedstocks.*

You might also like