Production of gasoline from municipal solid waste via steam gasification, methanol synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline technologies: A techno-economic assessment

Hamad AlMohamadi; Hamad AlMohamadi

doi:10.3934/energy.2021004

AIMS Energy

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1: 50-67. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021004

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Production of gasoline from municipal solid waste via steam gasification, methanol synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline technologies: A techno-economic assessment

Hamad AlMohamadi ^,

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University of Madinah, Madinah, Saudi Arabia

Received: 09 September 2020 Accepted: 29 November 2020 Published: 04 December 2020

A techno-economic analysis of the process of producing gasoline via steam gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) using dolomite catalysts, followed by a methanol synthesis and a methanol-to-gasoline process (SGMG) was conducted using an Aspen Plus model and an economic assessment. The process includes six steps: MSW pretreatment, steam gasification of MSW to produce syngas, gas purification through CO₂ and acid gas removal, methanol synthesis using syngas, conversion of methanol to gasoline, and gasoline separation. The Aspen Plus model used to estimate the energy and mass balance for sizing the equipment assumed that 2000 dry metric tonnes of MSW per day would be processed. Capital investment required and operating costs of gasoline production were estimated based on the Aspen Plus model's mass and energy balance and an nth plant. The minimum selling price (MSP) of gasoline was calculated using the capital investment and operating costs of the process. The total capital investment of the process was estimated to be ＄148 million, with an annual operational cost of ＄56 million. The minimum selling price was determined at ＄2.40/gal for a 20-year project life. The sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of feedstock has a direct impact on the MSP of gasoline, and MSP could decrease to ＄1.55/gal if the owners of the plant received disposal fees. Increasing the gasoline yield to 0.125 kg of gasoline/kg of MSW decreased the MSP to ＄1.86/gal. The ash content in MSW played a vital role in estimating the MSP. If the ash content in the feedstock increased, the MSP increased owing to a decrease in the gasoline yield and an increase in the cost of operations.
- gasification,
- techno-economic,
- municipal solid waste,
- waste management,
- Waste-to-Energy,
- syngas
Citation: Hamad AlMohamadi. Production of gasoline from municipal solid waste via steam gasification, methanol synthesis, and Methanol-to-Gasoline technologies: A techno-economic assessment[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(1): 50-67. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021004

Related Papers:

Abstract

A techno-economic analysis of the process of producing gasoline via steam gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) using dolomite catalysts, followed by a methanol synthesis and a methanol-to-gasoline process (SGMG) was conducted using an Aspen Plus model and an economic assessment. The process includes six steps: MSW pretreatment, steam gasification of MSW to produce syngas, gas purification through CO₂ and acid gas removal, methanol synthesis using syngas, conversion of methanol to gasoline, and gasoline separation. The Aspen Plus model used to estimate the energy and mass balance for sizing the equipment assumed that 2000 dry metric tonnes of MSW per day would be processed. Capital investment required and operating costs of gasoline production were estimated based on the Aspen Plus model's mass and energy balance and an nth plant. The minimum selling price (MSP) of gasoline was calculated using the capital investment and operating costs of the process. The total capital investment of the process was estimated to be ＄148 million, with an annual operational cost of ＄56 million. The minimum selling price was determined at ＄2.40/gal for a 20-year project life. The sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of feedstock has a direct impact on the MSP of gasoline, and MSP could decrease to ＄1.55/gal if the owners of the plant received disposal fees. Increasing the gasoline yield to 0.125 kg of gasoline/kg of MSW decreased the MSP to ＄1.86/gal. The ash content in MSW played a vital role in estimating the MSP. If the ash content in the feedstock increased, the MSP increased owing to a decrease in the gasoline yield and an increase in the cost of operations.

References

[1]	Verma M, Godbout S, Brar S, et al. (2012) Biofuels production from biomass by thermochemical conversion technologies. Int J Chem Eng 2012.
[2]	Ji L, Zhang C, Fang J (2017) Economic analysis of converting of waste agricultural biomass into liquid fuel: A case study on a biofuel plant in China. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 70: 224-229.
[3]	Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C (2010) An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energy Policy 38: 6977-6988.
[4]	Onel O, Niziolek AM, Hasan MF, et al. (2014) Municipal solid waste to liquid transportation fuels—Part I: Mathematical modeling of a municipal solid waste gasifier. Comput Chem Eng 71: 636-647.
[5]	Easterly JL, Burnham M (1996) Overview of biomass and waste fuel resources for power production. Biomass Bioenergy 10: 79-92.
[6]	Sipra AT, Gao N, Sarwar H (2018) Municipal solid waste (MSW) pyrolysis for bio-fuel production: A review of effects of MSW components and catalysts. Fuel Process Technol 175: 131-147.
[7]	Matsakas L, Gao Q, Jansson S, et al. (2017) Green conversion of municipal solid wastes into fuels and chemicals. EJB 26: 69-83.
[8]	Le Courtois A (2012) Municipal Solid Waste: turning a problem into resource. Private Sector Dev 15: 1-28.
[9]	Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N (2020) The relationship between municipal solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from Switzerland. Waste Manage.
[10]	Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N, et al. (2020) Waste generation, wealth and GHG emissions from the waste sector: Is Denmark on the path towards circular economy? Sci Total Environ 755: 142510.
[11]	Park YJ, Heo J (2002) Vitrification of fly ash from municipal solid waste incinerator. J Hazard Mater 91: 83-93.
[12]	McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83: 37-46.
[13]	Huang H, Buekens A (2001) Chemical kinetic modeling of de novo synthesis of PCDD/F in municipal waste incinerators. Chemosphere 44: 1505-1510.
[14]	Malkow T (2004) Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Manage 24: 53-79.
[15]	Abnisa F, Wan Daud WMA (2014) A review on co-pyrolysis of biomass: an optional technique to obtain a high-grade pyrolysis oil. Energy Convers Manage 87: 71-85.
[16]	Weil S, Hamel S, Krumm W (2006) Hydrogen energy from coupled waste gasification and cement production—a thermochemical concept study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 31: 1674-1689.
[17]	Zhang Y, Nagamori S, Hinchiranan S, et al. (2006) Promotional effects of Al₂O₃ addition to Co/SiO₂ catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Energy Fuels 20: 417-421.
[18]	Chaudhari S, Dalai A, Bakhshi N (2003) Production of hydrogen and/or syngas (H2 + CO) via steam gasification of biomass-derived chars. Energy Fuels 17: 1062-1067.
[19]	Thamavithya M, Dutta A (2008) An investigation of MSW gasification in a spout-fluid bed reactor. Fuel Process Technol 89: 949-957.
[20]	Ponzio A, Kalisz S, Blasiak W (2006) Effect of operating conditions on tar and gas composition in high temperature air/steam gasification (HTAG) of plastic containing waste. Fuel Process Technol 87: 223-233.
[21]	Luo S, Zhou Y, Yi C (2012) Syngas production by catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid waste in fixed-bed reactor. Energy 44: 391-395.
[22]	Phillips SD, Tarud JK, Biddy MJ, et al. (2011) Gasoline from woody biomass via thermochemical gasification, methanol synthesis, and methanol-to-gasoline technologies: a technoeconomic analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 50: 11734-11745.
[23]	AlMohamadi H, Gunukula S, DeSisto WJ, et al. (2018) Formate‐assisted pyrolysis of biomass: an economic and modeling analysis. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 12: 45-55.
[24]	Hannula I (2016) Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in the European context: A techno-economic assessment. Energy 104: 199-212.
[25]	Carrasco JL, Gunukula S, Boateng AA, et al. (2017) Pyrolysis of forest residues: An approach to techno-economics for bio-fuel production. Fuel 193: 477-484.
[26]	Phillips S (2007) Technoeconomic analysis of a lignocellulosic biomass indirect gasification process to make ethanol via mixed alcohols synthesis. Ind Eng Chem Res 46: 8887-8897.
[27]	Alamolhoda S, Vitale G, Hassan A, et al. (2019) Synergetic effects of cerium and nickel in Ce-Ni-MFI catalysts on low-temperature water-gas shift reaction. Fuel 237: 361-372.
[28]	Tijm P, Waller F, Brown D (2001) Methanol technology developments for the new millennium. Appl Catal A: General 221: 275-282.
[29]	Toyir J, Miloua R, Elkadri N, et al. (2009) Sustainable process for the production of methanol from CO₂ and H₂ using Cu/ZnO-based multicomponent catalyst. Physics Procedia 2: 1075-1079.
[30]	Yurchak S (1988) Development of Mobil's fixed-bed methanul-to-gasoline (MTG) process, In: Anonymous Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis: Elsevier, 251-272.
[31]	Kwak T, Lee S, Park J, et al. (2006) Gasification of municipal solid waste in a pilot plant and its impact on environment. Korean J Chem Eng 23: 954-960.
[32]	Swanson RM, Platon A, Satrio JA, et al. (2010) Techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on gasification. Fuel 89: S11-S19.
[33]	Posso F, Siguencia J, Sánchez J (2019) Use of municipal solid waste (MSW)-derived hydrogen in Ecuador: Potential applications for urban transportation. Waste Biomass Valorization 10: 1529-1537.
[34]	Larson ED, Jin H, Celik FE (2009) Large‐scale gasification‐based coproduction of fuels and electricity from switchgrass. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 3: 174-194.
[35]	Ramirez JA, Rainey TJ (2019) Comparative techno-economic analysis of biofuel production through gasification, thermal liquefaction and pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse. J Clean Prod 229: 513-527.
[36]	Enerkem, 2020. Available from: https://enerkem.com/products/methanol/.
[37]	Atalla TN, Gasim AA, Hunt LC (2018) Gasoline demand, pricing policy, and social welfare in Saudi Arabia: A quantitative analysis. Energy Policy 114: 123-133.
[38]	Radwan N, Mangi SA (2019) Municipal solid waste management practices and opportunities in Saudi Arabia. Eng, Technol Appl Sci Res 9: 4516-4519.
[39]	Available from: https://www.thefuelprice.com/, 2020.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)