Global Clean Gas Process Synthesis and Optimisation

  • Mar Pérez-Fortes
  • Aarón D. Bojarski
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


This chapter begins with an introduction to the different possible metrics related to clean gas process synthesis and its subsequent usage. Latter, the different techniques for tackling with multiple criteria are presented, emphasising the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and multi-objective optimisation (MOO). The different criteria elected here for optimisation are described and later used as key performance indicators (KPI) for the proposed scenarios, in chapter “ Selection of Best Designs for Specific Applications”. Finally, a case study related to the operation of an IGCC plant considering coal–petcoke or natural gas as a fuel is assessed applying the optimization concepts introduced here and taking into account the operation considerations developed in this and in previous chapters.


Life Cycle Assessment Cash Flow Emission Factor Impact Category Ecological Footprint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Abiotic depletion potentials


Analytical hierarchy process


Areas of protection


Acidification potentials


Base case


Cost benefit analysis


Carbon capture and storage


Cumulative energy demand


Cumulative exergy demand


Characterisation factor


Cost of energy


Continuous-stirred tank reactor


Electricity produced


Ecological footprint


Emission factor for pollutant i associate to activity j


Environmental mechanism


Electric Power Research Institute


Environmental risk assessment


Functional unit


Global warming potential


Integrated gasification combined cycle


Impact pathway analysis


International Panel on Climate Change


International Standards Organisation


Key performance indicator


Life cycle


Life cycle assessment


Life cycle inventory


Life cycle impact assessment


Multi-attribute utility theory


Multi-attribute value theory


Multi-criteria decision analysis


Multi-media compartment models


Multi-objective optimisation


Normal boundary intersection


Normal constraint method


Natural gas combined cycle


Net present value


Net present worth


Objective function


Pareto fronts


Discount rate


Supply chain


Each individual year, during the project life


Total annualised cost


Total capital requirement


Total operating costs


Technique for order by similarity to ideal solution


  1. 1.
    Seppala J, Basson L, Norris G (2002) Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5(4):45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azapagic A, Perdan S (2005) An integrated sustainability decision-support framework. Part I: problem structuring. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol 12:98–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azapagic A, Perdan S (2005) An integrated sustainability decision-support framework. Part II: problem analysis. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol 12:112–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharratt P (1999) Environmental criteria in design. Comput Chem Eng 23(10):1469–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanzil D, Beloff BR (2006) Assessing impacts: overview on sustainability indicators and metrics. Environ Qual Manage Summer 2006:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constable D, Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Lapkin A (2008) Process metrics. In: Lapkin A, Constable D (eds) Green chemistry metrics: measuring and monitoring sustainable processes. Chap. 6. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, pp 228–247Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azapagic A, Perdan S (2000) Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Process Saf Environ Prot 78(4):243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pintaric ZN, Kravanja Z (2006) Selection of the economic objective function for the optimisation of process flow sheets. Ind Eng Chem Res 45(12):4222–4232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biegler L, Grossmann I, Westerberg A (1997) Systematic methods of chemical process design. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters M, Timmerhaus K (1991) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koukouzas N, Katsiadakis A, Karlopoulos E, Kakaras E (2008) Co-gasification of solid waste and lignite–a case study for western macedonia. Waste Manage 28:1263–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ordorica-Garcia G, Douglas P, Croiset E, Zheng LG (2006) Technoeconomic evaluation of IGCC power plants for CO2 avoidance. Energy Convers Manage 47:2250–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frey HC (1991) Probabilistic modeling of innovative clean coal technologies: implications for research planning and technology evaluation. PhD thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frey HC, Akunuri N (2001) Probabilistic modeling and evaluation of the performance, emissions, and cost of texaco gasifier-based integrated gasification combined cycle systems using Aspen. Technical report. Computational Laboratory for Energy, Air, and Risk Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] TAG(tm) - Technical Assessment Guide, Volume 1: Electricity Supply - 1986 (1986) EPRI P-4463-SR. Electric Power Research Institute, IncGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ulrich GD, Vasudevan PT (2004) Chemical engineering process design and economics: a practical guide, 2nd edn. Sheridan Books, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pérez-Fortes M, Bojarski AD, Velo E, Puigjaner L (2010) IGCC power plants: conceptual design and techno-economic optimisation. In: Clean energy: resources, production and developments. Energy science, engineering and technology, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge NYGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamelink CN, Faaij APC (2002) Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass. J Power Sources 111:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Vliet PPR, Faaij APC, Turkenburg WC (2009) Fischer–Tropsch diesel production in a well-to-wheel perspective: a carbon, energy flow and cost analysis. Energy Convers Manage 50:855–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metz B, Davidson O, Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Chap 3. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D, Mc Kone T (2003) TRACI, The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stefanis S, Pistikopoulos E (1997) Methodology for environmental risk assessment of industrial nonroutine releases. Ind Eng Chem Res 36(9):3694–3707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allen D, Shonnard D, Prothero S (2002) Evaluating environmental performance during process synthesis. In: Allen D, Shonnard R (eds) Green engineering: environmentally conscious design of chemical processes. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 199–249Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sinclair-Rosselot K, Allen D (2002) Flowsheet analysis for pollution prevention. In: Allen D, Shonnard R (eds) Green engineering: environmentally conscious design of chemical processes. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey, pp 309–359Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mackay D (2001) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach, 2nd edn. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sonnemann G (2002) Environmental damage estimations in industrial process chains: methodology development with a case study on waste incineration and a special focus on human health. PhD thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Allen D, Shonnard D (2002) Green engineering: environmentally conscious design of chemical processes, Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey, Ch.2 pp 35-62Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cameron I, Raman R (2005) Process systems risk management, vol 6 process systems engineering. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Muller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment, background document for the second working group on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 74:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Humbert S, Margni M, Jolliet O (2005) IMPACT 2002+: user guide draft for version 2.1. Technical report, Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle Systems Group, GECOS, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guinee J, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Sleeswijk A, Suh S, de Haes H, de Brujin H, van Duin R, Huijbregts M, Lindeijer E, Roorda A, van-der Ven B, Weidema B (2001) Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Part 3: scientific background ministry of housing spatial planning and the environment (VROM) and centre of environmental science. Leiden University (CML), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heijungs R, Guinee J, Huppes G, Lankreijer R, de Haes H, Wegener A, Sleeswijk A, Ansems M, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Center for environmental studies (CML), vol 1 and 2. Leiden University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hauschild M, Potting J (2004) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: the EDIP-2003 methodology. Guidelines from the Danish EPA. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products, Vol. 1: methodology tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bare J (2002) Developing a consistent decision-making framework by using the US EPA’s TRACI. Technical report. Systems Analysis Branch, Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented methods for life cycle impact assessment, methodology report. Technical report. Pré Consultants BV, Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—General system characteristics, CPM report 1999:4. Technical report. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems (CPM). Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heijungs R, Guinee J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J LCA 12(4):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huijbregts M, Breedveld L, Huppes G, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S (1995) Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). J Clean Prod 11(7):737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gandibleux X, Sevaux M, Sörensen K, T’Kindt V (2004) Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation. Series: lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 535. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiecek MM, Ehrgott M, Fadel G, Figueira JR (2008) Multiple criteria decision making for engineering. Omega-Int J Manage Sci 36:337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cano-Ruiz J, McRae G (1998) Environmentally conscious chemical process design. Annu Rev Energy Environ 23:499–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Messac A, Ismail-Yahaya A, Mattson C (2003) The normalized normal constraint method for generating the pareto frontier. Struct Multidisciplinary Optim 25:86–98MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimisation: theory computation and application, Chap 14. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics—applied. John Wiley & sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Das I, Dennis JE (1998) Normal-boundary intersection: a new method for generating the pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimisation problems. SIAM J Optim 8:631–657MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hwang C, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer-Verlag, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Descamps C, Bouallou C, Kanniche M (2008) Efficiency of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant including CO2 removal. Energy 33:874–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Desideri U, Paolucci A (1999) Performance modeling of a carbon dioxide removal system for power plants. Energy Convers Manage 40:1899–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kanniche M, Bouallob C (2007) CO2 capture study in advanced integrated gasification combined cycle. Appl Therm Eng 27:2693–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen C, Rubin ES (2009) CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost. Energy Policy 37:915–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Amann JM, Kanniche M, Bouallou C (2009) Natural gas combined cycle power plant modified into an O2/CO2 cycle for CO2 capture. Energy Convers Manage 50:510–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Delattin F, de Ruyck J, Bram S (2009) Detailed study of the impact of co-utilization of biomass in a natural gas combined cycle power plant through perturbation analysis. Appl Energy 86:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Corti A, Lombardi L (2004) Biomass integrated gasification combined cycle with reduced CO2 emissions: performance analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA). Energy 29:2109–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fiaschi D, Lombardi L (2002) Integrated gasifier combined cycle plant with integrated CO2–H2S removal: performance analysis, life cycle assessment and exergetic life cycle assessment. Int J Appl Thermodynamics 5(1):13–24Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Huijbregts M, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks J (2007) Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products. Ecol Econom 64:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Huijbregts M, Rombouts L, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, van-de Meent D, Ragas A, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2006) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    de Schryver A, Goedkoop M, Oele M (2006) Introduction to LCA with simapro 7. Technical report. Pre-Product Ecology Consultants, Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ecoinvent (2008) The ecoinvent database V2.0. Technical report. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jungbluth N (2007) Erdöl. In: Dones R (ed) Sachbilanzen von energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen vergleich von energiesystemen und den einbezug von energiesystemen in ökobilanzen für die schweiz, Ecoinvent Report No. 6-IV. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DuebendorfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETSEIBUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations