Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x

Combined heat and power production based on sewage sludge gasification:

An energy-efficient solution for wastewater treatment plants
Paola Brachi a, Simona Di Fraia b, *, Nicola Massarotti b, Laura Vanoli b
a
Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie per l’Energia e la Mobilità Sostenibili - Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche (STEMS-CNR), P.le V. Tecchio, 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università Degli Studi di Napoli “Parthenope”, Napoli, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main operating costs of wastewater treatment plants are related to the energy consumption and the disposal
CHP of by-products. Energy recovery from sewage sludge may be a solution to face both these challenges, improving
Heat recovery the sustainability of wastewater treatment plants and making them an example of a circular economy. In this
Thermal drying
work, the energy and economic analysis of an integrated combined heat and power system based on sewage
Sewage sludge
Syngas
sludge gasification is proposed. The whole process is simulated by using the commercial software Aspen Plus®. A
restricted equilibrium model is used to simulate the gasification of sewage sludge in an atmospheric fluidized bed
reactor using air as a gasification agent. Syngas produced from gasification is used as a fuel in an internal
combustion engine for combined heat and power production. Different solutions are compared: the internal
combustion engine is supposed to be fuelled with syngas or with syngas and methane. In line with the pertinent
literature on integrated biomass gasification–internal combustion engine systems, the engine is modeled by
combining a compressor, a combustor and a turbine to simulate the four thermodynamic steps of an internal
combustion engine. Electric and thermal energy produced by the system is used to supply a fraction of the de­
mand for wastewater and sludge treatment. The energy analysis is carried out for a real wastewater treatment
plant that serves 1.2 million of population equivalent, located in Southern Italy. The obtained results are used to
carry out an energy and economic analysis, which aims at assessing the feasibility and environmental benefits of
the proposed system over conventional technologies.

to be a valuable source of energy and materials [3,4]. In particular,

energy recovery technologies are more effective in reducing sludge
Introduction
volume and pollutants and present a lower global warming potential
compared to other treatment methods [5]. In WWTPs, energy recovery
Sewage sludge management has become one of the most critical
from sludge allows, on one hand, to reduce the waste to be disposed of,
challenges in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Indeed, although it
on the other hand, to reduce the energy purchase, which accounts for
represents a small percentage of wastewater treated in a plant, its
25–50% of operating costs in WWTPs [6]. Therefore, from a wider
handling accounts for up to 50% of the total operating costs [1]. In
perspective, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions related to road trans­
recent years, sludge production has increased for several reasons. The
portation and energy production, which are usually based on fossil fuels
world population has increased and, at the same time, the population
[7].
served by WWTPs has increased. Also, wastewater treatment has
Energy from sludge can be recovered through either biological or
become more intensive due to the more stringent legislation, increasing
thermochemical processes. Gasification is a promising thermochemical
the solids percentage that is removed from wastewater. The stringent
conversion process to produce useful energy forms from sewage sludge
legislation also concerns sludge disposal since the traditional options,
[8], and it presents several advantages over conventional combustion
such as direct utilization in agriculture and landfilling, need to be
[9,10]. Indeed, gasification is carried out in an oxidant-restricted at­
limited to make way for the recovery of useful materials and/or energy
mosphere, which limits the formation of dioxins, as well as sulfur and
in a sustainable way [2].
nitrogen oxides [11], and also reduces the amount of gas to be cleaned
Waste-to-energy has significantly expanded in recent decades
and consequently the cost of cleaning systems to be installed [12–14].
including different feedstock, among which sewage sludge is recognized

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: simona.difraia@uniparthenope.it (S. Di Fraia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2021.100171
Received 15 September 2021; Received in revised form 23 December 2021; Accepted 27 December 2021
Available online 30 December 2021
2590-1745/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Nomenclature X
Y
Roman Symbol Acronyms
a CGE
A DB
c ER
ΔCF WWTP(s)
Cp Greek Symbol
G γ - Ratio between specific heat at constant pressure and
H specific heat at constant volume
h η % Efficiency
ΔHV Subscripts/Superscripts
J 0
j CHP
KY Compr
L DF
LHV el
ṁ Fuel
M G
N Gas
NPV I Installation
NPP in
NTU is
p LW
PER ref
Q̇ Res
qL S
R Sl
SPB Syng
T th
V̇ Turb
V
Ẇ

Moreover, gasification associated to energy production appears to have process has been demonstrated in Balingen (with a throughput of 935 t/
a lower environmental impact compared to incineration [15,16]. In a ds) and Mannheim (with a throughput of 1955 t/a ds), in Germany,
addition, phosphorus is released as a solid residue [17] making its re­ where the ER has been varied between 0.28 and 0.35 and the optimum
covery easier. temperature range has been observed to be between 800 and 870 ◦ C
For these reasons, sludge gasification has been recently investigated [24].
by many authors, both experimentally and numerically, exploring Fewer works are available on sewage sludge gasification in bubbling
different types of gasifiers and operating conditions. fluidized bed reactors. Such works mostly focus on the effect of the bed
Sludge gasification has been tested in small-scale downdraft gas­ properties on the process. Increasing the bed height can improve the
ifiers, obtaining syngas with a Lower Heating Value (LHV) around 4 MJ/ process efficiency [25], using calcined dolomite [26] or alumina [27] as
m3 and a Cold Gas Efficiency (CGE) around 60–65% [18,19]. Despite bed material may increase the production of H2 as well as the tar
some authors have investigated downdraft reactors, fluidized beds are removal in syngas.
the most used to process sewage sludge due to the good gas–solid con­ As mentioned above, the advantage of gasification is the production
tact, mixing and flexibility [20,21]. Among them, in particular the of a useful energy vector [28] from sewage sludge. However, the use of
bubbling fluidized bed reactors are reported to exhibit a larger techno­ syngas from sewage sludge for energy generation has not been widely
logical strength and market competitiveness in regards to sewage sludge investigated and the available papers focus mainly on the gasification
gasification with respect to the circulating fluidized beds [22]. Such process itself [29]. Due to the low organic content, the syngas obtained
reactors have been tested at a laboratory scale for gasification of sewage by sewage sludge gasification may cause problems when it is used for
sludge, showing that, at a given equivalence ratio, larger throughput, power production [30], such as unstable combustion in the engine
which also means lower gas residence times, does not remarkably [31,32] and power drop of about 1/3 if compared to a spark-ignition
impact the CGE and the carbon conversion, but it increases the tar engine fueled with gasoline [33]. Using syngas from sewage sludge
production [23]. It has been observed that the most influencing gasification in a spark-ignited internal combustion engine driving a
parameter is the equivalence ratio (ER) and the ER values in the range of power generator (16 kW/1500 rpm) has been investigated by Szwaja
0.2–0.35 are suitable to optimize the gasification of sewage sludge et al. [30]. To fix several malfunctions due to the relatively low calorific
[20,22]. Also, the temperature has been found to significantly affect the value of the syngas, methane enrichment has been investigated finding
process, with higher efficiency observed at a higher temperature. that a satisfactory engine run can be achieved with 40% vol of methane.
However, this parameter has to be limited due to the risk of melting, A similar operation strategy has been proposed by Elsner et al. [29],
agglomeration, and sintering of the sewage sludge ash. where the authors suggested gasifying blends of sewage sludge and
Sewage sludge gasification in fluidized bed reactors has been wood pellets (60%/40%) to increase the calorific value of the produced
investigated also at a larger scale. The successful operation of the syngas and consequently the system performance.

2
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Since few studies are available on the use of syngas from sewage whereas the heat is used for thermal drying of the sludge produced into
sludge gasification in internal combustion engines, some data related to the plant. A WWTP of the Campania region, in southern Italy, where
syngas from other biomasses are illustrated in Table 1. electricity is purchased from the grid, is considered as a case study.
Some authors proposed to use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) The models developed to carry out the feasibility analysis of the
systems for energy generation from syngas. In the case of syngas from proposed system, along with the main assumptions taken into account,
sewage sludge, the waste heat has been proposed to be used for sludge are described in Section 2. Then, the results of the analysis are illustrated
drying. Indeed, the moisture content of sewage sludge needs to be in Section 3 and the main conclusions are drawn in Section 4.
reduced for efficient gasification since it causes more active endothermic
reactions, making keeping the temperature in the reactor difficult [34]. Methods
For this reason, sewage sludge is usually dried before gasification.
Thermal drying is a highly energy-intensive process [35], therefore The integrated system developed in this work is illustrated in Fig. 1.
using waste heat from gasification may be crucial to reduce its energy The wet sewage sludge enters the dryer at ambient temperature and
consumption. As an example, the project SEDIS (Sewage Sludge Disposal pressure (1) and is dried to a moisture content lower than 10% (2), using
with Energy Recovery through downscaled Fluidised Bed Gasification a hot drying stream (3). A fraction of the drying flow is recycled (4a) to
and CHP Units) has presented two processes to convert sewage sludge increase the efficiency of the system and to reduce the flow rate of the
into useful energy on-site at the WWTP [36]. In both processes, waste exhausted to be treated (4b). The dry sludge (2) feeds a bubbling bed
heat from gasification is used for sludge drying, which is carried through reactor gasifier that produces syngas (7) and char (6). The raw syngas is
a fluidized bed technology, and in one of the two systems, such waste cleaned through a cyclone (7–8) that separates the coarse ash particles
heat is integrated with solar energy. (9) and then cooled down through the heat exchanger (8–13), which is
The use of syngas in an internal combustion engine has been pro­ used to pre-heat fresh air used as a fraction of the drying flow (13–14).
posed by Kokalj et al. [37], where two scenarios have been compared. After cooling (10), syngas and eventually methane (11) power an in­
Syngas has been supposed to be fed into the public natural gas grid or ternal combustion engine that produces electrical energy used to supply
stored on-site in a reservoir to be used based on power demand periods. the dryer and a fraction of the WWTP demand and thermal energy
The first scenario is more convenient in terms of initial investment due employed to supply the dryer demand. When dual fuel operation is
to the use of the existing natural gas distribution network and energy considered, the mass flow rate of methane needed to cover the entire
recovering infrastructure, whereas the second scenario allows producing thermal energy demand of the drying process is considered. When only
more power if complete onsite installation is available. syngas is used as a fuel, the exhausts (20) of a boiler powered by
Different scenarios for energy production based on sewage sludge methane (18) are used to meet the thermal demand of the drying
gasification have been also proposed by Alves et al. [49], where the process.
techno-economic analysis for a small-scale gasification plant processing As mentioned above, thermal energy for the drying process is sup­
mixtures of solid recovered fuels and sewage sludge is presented. In that plied through a hot drying stream of which a fraction is recirculated. To
work, the two analyzed solutions are the production of electric energy replace the fraction of non-recycled drying flow, the exhaust gases of the
and the production of hydrogen. Both the scenarios result economically engine (17) and fresh air (12) are supplied to the system. Fresh air is pre-
feasible, with a lower payback period and higher internal rate of return heated (12–14) using the engine cooling water (12–13) and the hot
in the first case, and a higher net present value in the second one. syngas (13–14).
In the present work, a cogeneration system based on sewage sludge The proposed system is numerically simulated through the software
gasification in a bubbling bed reactor is numerically analyzed. Syngas Aspen Plus (Advanced System for Process Engineering) to assess its
produced from gasification is used as a fuel in an internal combustion energy performance. The system can be divided into three sub-systems
engine for combined heat and power production. Different solutions are that are thermal drying, gasification, and energy production. Sewage
compared: the internal combustion engine is supposed to be fuelled with sludge is modeled as a carbonaceous fuel [50], characterized by a par­
syngas or with syngas and natural gas. The electrical energy produced by ticle size distribution, calculating the specific heat and density, and
the system supplies a fraction of the energy demand of the WWTP, enthalpy through statistical correlations based on the biomass ultimate,

Table 1
Literature data on the operation of internal combustion engines fuelled with syngas from biomass gasification.
Ref. Biomass Syngas LHV (MJ/Nm3) Engine efficiency Maximum capacity (kW) Compression De-
ratio rating

[38] Switchgrass 6.47 ± 0.7 21.3% (electrical) 9 (natural gas) – 44%

[39] Redwood pelletsWood chips 5.31–6.494.67–5.86 16.4% (electrical)19% (electrical) 56 10.25 –
[32] 5.179 (MJ/kg) 19.3% 5.5 – –
[40] Bagasse – 31.6% – – –
Pine sawdust 30.7%
Poplar sawdust 30.9%
Almond shells 31.3%
[41] Agriculture residues – 26–30% (electrical), 15–34% (thermal) 100–1000 kWth – –
[42] Beech chips 11.8 (MJ/kg) 41.9% (electrical), 43.8% (thermal) 3.1 MWe (natural gas) – –
[43] Wood chips 4–5 (MJ/kg) 23.3–24.5% (electrical) – – –
61.3–61.7% (thermal)
[44] Wood chips – 21.8% (electrical), 46.1% (thermal) – – –
[29] Sewage sludge and wood 5.2 28.9%* (electrical) 100 kW (liquified petroleum – –
pellets gas)
[45] Rice husk 3.0–6.7 (MJ/kg) 26–28.5% (electrical), 19–21% 1131 kWe (natural gas) 12.5 32%*
(thermal)
[46] – 3.813–5.294 (MJ/kg) 22–27% (electrical at partial load) 30 kW – –
[47] Wood – 28.5% (electrical), 43.9% (thermal) – – 34.6%*
[48] Wood 3.77 ± (8.46 × 10-6) 28.1 ± 1.1% (electrical) 20 kWe 9.45
31.3 ± 7.6% (thermal)

*calculated from the data presented in the reference.

3
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 1. Layout of the analyzed system.

proximate, and sulfur analyses [51]. In Aspen Plus such materials are Where ṁDF is the mass flow rate and Y is the humidity, both on a dry
modeled as “non-conventional” streams. basis, of the Drying Flow (DF), ṁSl is the mass flow rate and X is the
The Peng Robinson-Boston Mathias modified method is used to moisture content of sludge (Sl), h is the specific enthalpy and qL repre­
model the system since it deals with multiple phases, as well as con­ sents the rate of heat loss from the system. The numbering refers to the
ventional and nonconventional solids, and is suitable for high- sketch of Fig. 2.
temperature processes [52]. This method uses the Peng Robinson The Drying Flow is a vapor–gas mixture, whose specific enthalpy,
cubic equation of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function for all hDF, can be assumed as the sum of the specific enthalpies of the Gas and
the thermodynamic properties, which is suitable for the nonpolar or the Vapor, as:
mildly polar mixtures such as hydrocarbons and light gases. [ ]
hDF = Cp,G T + Cp,LW TS + ΔHV + Cp,V (T − TS ) Y (3)
Thermal drying where Cp,G , Cp,LW and Cp,V are the average specific heats of dry Gas,
Liquid Water and Vapor, respectively, T is the temperature, ΔHV is the
ASPEN Plus provides built-in components to simulate thermal dry­ latent heat term for water vaporization, and the subscript S represents
ing. In this work, a convective belt dryer is considered, due to its high the saturation condition. As mentioned above, for carbonaceous mate­
flexibility and the possibility of adjusting its operation by managing the rials, as sewage sludge, enthalpy is derived through correlations based
temperature and flow rate of the drying stream [53]. Thermal drying is on ultimate and proximate analyses.
analyzed considering the geometric parameters of the component and The kinetics of the process is considered implementing an experi­
the thermodynamic parameters of the material flows. mental drying curve [55], that delineates the rate of moisture loss as the
The convective belt dryer, illustrated in Fig. 2, is modeled consid­ material dries out. To determine the temperature and drying-rate pro­
ering the following mass and heat balances [54]: file, an index of performance of the dryer, called Number of Transfer
ṁDF Y1 + ṁSl X1 = ṁDF Y2 + ṁSl X2 (1) Units, NTU, is defined as [54]:
YS − YG,in KY AL
ṁDF h1 + ṁSl h1 = ṁDF h2 + ṁSl h2 + qL (2) NTU = ln = (4)
YS − YG G
Where KY is the mass transfer coefficient for humidity differences, A
Drying flow is the interfacial area per unit dryer volume, L is the length of the dryer,
1
G is the specific dry Drying Flow and the subscript in represents the
initial condition.
Sludge Dryer
1 2
Gasification

2 Aspen Plus does not provide a built-in component to simulate gasi­

fication. A component that models the minimization of the Gibbs free
Fig. 2. Scheme of the thermal dryer. energy of the system is commonly used in the literature to investigate

4
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

biomass gasification [56–59]. Therefore, such a component, together - the process is considered to be steady-state, no transient state is
with other blocks provided by Aspen Plus and some external subroutines modeled;
written in FORTRAN, is used to simulate the gasification process. - gasification is assumed to be run isothermally;
A scheme of the model developed in Aspen Plus is reported in Fig. 3. - the model is zero-dimensional and kinetic-free;
The dried sludge is fed into a decomposition reactor, used to - sludge devolatilization occurs instantaneously at the entrance of the
decompose non-conventional streams, such as sludge, into its constitu­ reactor;
ent elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen), water and ash. - syngas is modeled as a mixture of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide
Indeed, the reactor that simulates chemical equilibrium by minimizing (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), moisture (H2O),
Gibbs free energy cannot deal with non-conventional components. The ethylene (C2H4) and ethane (C2H6);
RYield Reactor is used as a decomposition block since stoichiometry and - pressure for all components is set to atmospheric pressure;
kinetics are unknown, but a yield distribution is available. The mass - the formation of the tars and other heavy products is neglected.
yields of the RYield reactor are determined and set starting from the data
of ultimate and proximate analyses by using a subroutine written in Handling tar formation is still one of the biggest challenges in
FORTRAN. modeling gasification processes and there is still no consensus in the
A heat stream connects the decomposition and the gasification re­ literature [61]. Extensive discussions on modeling the formation of tar in
actors to account for the difference in enthalpy between the original the gasification process are not within the focus of this paper and can be
stream and the decomposed one. found elsewhere [62–64]. More details on the model adopted herein, as
The outlet stream from the decomposition block enters a separator to well as its validation, can be found in [65].
remove unreacted char before the gasification reactor. As mentioned The performance of gasification can be assessed through the CGE, an
above, for the gasification reactor an RGibbs is used, where the sludge index that represents the ratio between the energetic value of the pro­
and the hot gasifying agent are fed and additional heat is supplied to duced syngas and the energy in the biomass fed in the gasifier:
sustain the process.
ṁSyng ∙LHV Syng
The unconverted char is heated up to the gasifier temperature and ηCGE = (11)
ṁSl ∙LHV Sl
then mixed with the gas stream leaving the gasifier. Finally, the
unreacted char and ash are separated from the raw syngas through a where ṁSyng and LHV Syng are the mass flow rate and the lower heating
cyclone. value of the produced syngas and LHV Sl is the lower heating value of the
It is well known that the gasification process does not straightfor­ treated biomass.
wardly reach the chemical equilibrium state due to the short residence To assess the efficiency of the gasification from an energy point of
time of gases in the reactor. Therefore, to better simulate the non- view, the net primary power available from the process is estimated as:
equilibrium conditions of real gasifiers, a modified equilibrium model
Q̇Gas
for sludge gasification is set by implementing a restricted chemical NPP = ṁSyng ∙LHV Syng − (12)
equilibrium, as proposed in [60]. The restricted equilibrium is per­ ηth
formed by specifying a temperature approach, which represents the where Q̇Gas is the thermal power supplied to carry out gasification
difference between the chemical equilibrium temperature and the real and ηth is a reference thermal efficiency.
reactor temperature. Essentially, the reaction equilibrium is moved to­
wards the reagents or products so as to better simulate the nonequilib­
rium conditions of the real gasifier. Cogeneration unit
The reactions (5) to (10) are considered to occur during sewage
sludge gasification. As commonly supposed in the available literature, to represent the
behavior of a combustion engine where the reaction with air occurs,
C + H2O ↔ H2 + CO Water Gas (5) compressors, chemical reactors, turbines, and heat exchangers are used
to model isentropic compression, combustion at constant volume,
C + O2 ↔ CO2 Carbon combustion (6)
isentropic expansion and cooling at constant volume [66,67].
C + 2 H2 ↔ CH4 Methanation (7) Both compressor and turbine work at fixed isentropic efficiency. The
isentropic efficiency refers to the deviation from the reversible, adia­
CO + H2O ↔ H2 + CO2 Water Gas Shift (8) batic work, and is calculated for the compressor, ηis,Compr , and the tur­
C2H4 + 3 O2 ↔ 2 H2O + 2 CO2 Ethylene combustion (9) bine, ηis,Turb , as:

H2 + 0.5 O2 ↔ H2O Hydrogen combustion (10) (p2 /p1 )(γ− 1)/γ − 1

ηis,Compr = (13)
T2 /T1 − 1
The following assumptions are considered for the simulation of the
sludge gasification: T2 /T1 − 1
ηis,Turb = (14)
(p2 /p1 )(γ− 1)/γ − 1

Fig. 3. Scheme of the model developed in Aspen Plus to simulate gasification process.

5
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the inlet and outlet conditions, specific cost for its disposal.
respectively, and γ to the ratio between specific heat at constant pressure The economic indexes used for the analysis are the Simple PayBack,
and specific heat at constant volume. SPB, and the Net Present Value, NPV, which are reported in Equations
The isentropic expansion and compression coefficients are defined (20) and (21), respectively.
by calibrating the model through experimental data available in the
J0 + JI
literature. For the sake of completeness, some examples proposed in the SPB = (20)
ΔCF
literature are presented in Table 2.
The combustion chamber is modeled as an RGibbs operating at the ∑N
ΔCF
compressor outlet pressure. The air mass flow rate entering the com­ NPV = − (J0 + JI ) + (21)
(1 + a)i
bustion chamber is calculated to guaranty the best engine performance, i=1

considering an excess in relation to the amount of stoichiometric oxygen where a is the discounting rate, equal to 7.00%, and N is the service
needed for the combustion reactions. It is assumed that H2, CO, CH4, life, equal to 15 years. An overhaul of the system, whose cost is supposed
C2H4 and C2H6 participate as fuels in combustion reactions. To simulate to be 30.0% of the total investment cost, is considered during the 7th
heat losses, the reactor is assumed to be nonadiabatic by setting an year. ΔCF is the annual economic saving, which is the sum of the rev­
exiting thermal stream. enues and the operational costs of the system:
The low-grade heat is estimated through a heat exchanger that cools
ΔCF = Rel,CHP + RFuel + RSl − Cfuel − M − CRes (22)
the turbine exhausts up to the common temperature at which they are
released in conventional internal combustion engines. where the cost for the fuel, Cfuel , and that for the solid residue of the
process, Cres , are calculated as:

Economic and environmental assessment CFuel = V̇ Fuel ∙cFuel ∙H (23)

The feasibility of the proposed system is assessed through an eco­ CRes = ṁRes ∙cRes ∙H (24)
nomic analysis. The economic model is based on several indexes,
in which V̇ Fuel is the volumetric flow rate of methane used by the
dependent on the investment and the operating costs.
proposed system, ṁRes is the mass flow rate of the solid residue of the
The investment cost of the gasifier can be derived as a function of its
gasification process and cRes is the specific cost for its disposal.
thermal power [69]. The specific investment cost for the CHP units, jCHP,
Power generation technologies based on the use of biomass are
can be determined as [70]:
usually more sustainable in terms of environmental impact compared to
jCHP = 4639∙Wel− 0.333 (15) reference solutions [72]. To assess the environmental performance of
the system the Primary Energy Ratio (PER) is calculated as:
The maintenance costs, M, of the whole system are supposed to be
5.00% of the total investment cost, J0 [71]: PER =
Usefulenergy
(25)
Primaryenergy(nonrenewable)
J0 = JGas + JCHP (16)
J0 is increased by 20.0% to account for the installation costs,JI . The Results and discussion
energy production of CHP unit allows reducing economic expenses
related to the purchase of electricity from the grid to supply the plant Input parameters
facilities and of fuel to produce heat for thermal drying. The revenue due
to electric energy saving, Rel,CHP , is defined as: A feasibility analysis of the proposed system is carried out for a
WWTP located in the Campania region, Southern Italy, which serves an
Rel,CHP = cel ∙Ẇ el,CHP ∙H (17) equivalent population of 1,200,000 inhabitants, with an electrical en­
ergy demand of 31,916 MWh/year and a sludge production of 36,498 t/
where cel is the specific cost for electric energy purchase, Ẇ is the
year. Sludge ultimate and elemental analyses are reported in Table 3.
saved electrical power, and H represents the yearly hours of operation.
The main input parameters assumed for the simulation are summa­
The thermal demand of sludge drying is partially or completely,
rized in Table 4.
depending on the configuration, supplied by the CHP unit. To determine
For the gasification, ER and temperature are varied to identify the
the related revenue, the volumetric flow rate of methane, V̇ Fuel,ref , needed
best conditions in terms of energy recovery. The ranges are defined
by a boiler to provide the same thermal energy is calculated. The related
considering the conditions suggested in the literature [20,22,65]. For
revenue is equal to:
the sake of completeness, the ER is defined as the fraction between the
RFuel = V̇ Fuel,ref ∙cFuel ∙H (18) actual air–fuel ratio and the stoichiometric air–fuel ratio.
For the drying process, the sludge mass flow rate and its moisture
where cFuel is the specific cost of methane. Due to gasification, the content are provided by the WWTP manager.
proposed system allows avoiding also the cost for sludge disposal, which The input parameters of the CHP unity, when syngas or syngas and
is calculated as: natural gas are considered as fuel, are derived by calibrating the model
RSl = ṁSl ∙cSl ∙H (19) through the experimental data reported in [30]. More in detail, a
sensitivity analysis is carried out by varying isentropic efficiency for
where ṁSl is the mass flow rate of gasified sludge and cSl is the

Table 2 Table 3
Literature data on the simulation of internal combustion engines fuelled with Main properties of the sludge, .
syngas from biomass gasification in Aspen Plus.
Proximate analysis Unit Value Ultimate analysis Unit Value
Ref. Isentropic expansion coefficient Isentropic compression coefficient
Volatile matter %wt,db 59.67 C %wt,db 31.89
[48] 87% 85% Fixed carbon %wt,db 5.63 H %wt,db 5.51
[68] 90% 90% Ash %wt,db 34.7 N %wt,db 3.84
[67] – 70% O %wt,db 24.06
[66] 90% –
adapted from [73]

6
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Table 4 concentration of CO and H2 may be related to the intensification of the

Input thermodynamic parameters of sludge and fresh air. water gas and water gas shift reactions at higher temperatures. CO2
Process Parameter Unit Value presents an inverse trend with temperature compared to CO, since their
formation mainly depends on the C conversion, with water gas reaction
Gasification Equivalence ratio (ER) – 0.100 ÷
0.400 appearing to be predominant compared to carbon combustion at higher
Fresh air inlet temperature, T11 ◦
C 25.0 temperatures. However, at the same time, as the temperature increases,
Fraction of unconverted char – 0.22 the oxidation of CO to CO2 rises, reducing the decrease of CO2 molar
Gasification temperature ◦
C 720 ÷ 840 fraction.
Cogenerationunit Compression ratio 10.5:1
CH4 concentration is almost constant with temperature, with an
–
Air–fuel equivalence ratio – 1.10
Turbine exhausts temperature ◦
C 390 initial slight increase that can be connected to tar cracking and a final
Drying Mass flow rate of sludge (wet t/y 36,500 decrease that could be attributed to the cracking of CH4.
basis),ṁSl,1 Regarding the effect of the ER, the concentration of CO and CO2 is
Sludge inlet temperature, T1 C 25.0 almost constant. These compounds appear to be little influenced by the
◦

Sludge inlet moisture content, X1 % 70.0

dilution on one hand because of their higher concentration, on the other
Fresh air inlet pressure, p17 bar 1.00
Fresh air inlet temperature, T17 ◦
C 25.0 hand, because their formation is driven by O2 whose presence in the
Recycled fraction of desiccant flow % 55.0 gasifier rises with the ER. As expected, the concentration of H2, CH4 and
Economics Electricity purchase €/MWh 180 C2H4 decreases as the ER increases, since the combustion reactions are
Methane cost €/Nm3 0.329 predominant due to the increasing presence of O2.
Disposal cost of solid residue €/t 50.0
Fig. 5 illustrates the variation of LHV and mass flow rate of syngas
Methane LHV MJ/ 35.7
Nm3 with the gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii), respectively. As found
Operation hours h/y 7000 in the available literature [8,20,50,75,77], LHV and mass flow rate of
syngas are significantly influenced by the ER, whereas the process
temperature has a slight effect on these parameters. However, as the
both compressor and turbine between 0.7 and 0.9, as suggested in the
temperature increases, a slight increase of both the LHV and the mass
available literature (Table 2) and heat losses between 5 and 15%, in
flow rate of syngas can be observed; this can be due to the endothermal
order to match the experimental values. A similar procedure is used to
gasification reactions that perform better at higher temperatures [20].
calibrate the model for the simulation of an internal combustion engine
The decrease of the LHV and the increase of the mass flow rate of syngas
fueled with methane [74] that is used as a reference case for the eco­
with the ER can be easily related to the dilution of syngas in nitrogen due
nomic and environmental analyses.
to the increase of the mass flow rate of gasifying agent.
For the economic analysis, the cost of electricity is provided by the
Obviously, the trends of LHV and mass flow rate and syngas signif­
WWTP, while for methane the average price for non-households con­
icantly influence the net primary power available from sludge gasifica­
sumers in EU-28 countries of natural gas, considering the data between
tion that depends on the primary power of syngas and the thermal power
2008 and 2018, is adopted [20].
required to carry out the gasification process, shown in Fig. 6.
The primary power of syngas is significantly influenced by its LHV
Gasification then it increases with the process temperature and decreases with the
ER. The thermal power required to carry out the process has the same
The main results related to the gasification process are reported from trend. Increasing the gasification temperature allows increasing the
Fig. 4 to Fig. 7. Since the aim of the work is to propose an energy- process performance, in terms of LHV and mass flow rate of syngas, but
efficient solution for wastewater treatment plants, the analysis of the it rises the external demand for thermal power. Increasing the ER allows
gasification process is intended to identify the operating conditions that compensating this effect, since the influence of exothermic combustion
maximize energy recovery from syngas. For this reason, a sensitivity reactions becomes more significant, lowering the external demand of
analysis is carried out by varying the process temperature and the ER. thermal power so much that at high ERs the process is almost energy
Fig. 4 shows the syngas composition as the temperature (i) and the self-sufficient. Therefore, assuming that the external demand for ther­
ER (ii) vary, respectively. mal power for gasification is satisfied by using the same syngas in a
In agreement with the literature [75,76], the mole fraction of CO and boiler, the net primary power can be determined. There is a slight
H2 increases with gasification temperature. The increase in the

Fig. 4. Dry syngas composition (N2 is not plotted to improve the readability of the picture): variation with gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

7
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 5. LHV and mass flow rate of syngas: variation with gasification temperature (a) and ER (b).

Fig. 6. Primary power from syngas, thermal power needed for gasification and net primary power: variation with gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

the process performance, causing a general increase of the net primary

power available from syngas with the ER.
It is important to consider the trend of the net primary power since
the conventional performance indexes used for gasification, such as
syngas LHV or CGE, do not account for the external energy requirements
of the process.
The effect of varying the gasification temperature and the ER on the
CGE is shown in Fig. 7. As mentioned above, both the LHV and the mass
flow rate of syngas increase with the gasification temperature and
consequently the CGE. The trend is opposite when the ER increases due
to the higher impact of LHV decrease compared to the syngas mass flow
rate increase. This is coherent with the decrease of primary power
available from syngas. However, as mentioned above, when the thermal
power demand for carrying out the process is also taken into account,
increasing the ER has a positive effect in terms of net primary power
available from syngas.

Fig. 7. CGE.
Cogeneration unit
variation of this parameter with temperature, with an increasing trend
up to 800 ◦ C for the reasons discussed above. However, beyond this For combined heat and power production different solutions are
value, the increase in the process performance allows compensating the numerically investigated, taking into account the experimental results of
need for external thermal demand. the use of syngas from biomass gasification available in the literature. To
Concerning the effect of the ER, it appears that the effect of calibrate the model developed to simulate an internal combustion en­
decreasing external thermal power demand prevails on the decrease of gine fueled with syngas or syngas and methane, the experimental data
reported in [30] are considered. A sensitivity analysis on the isentropic

8
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

coefficients for expansion and compression as well as on the combustion

efficiency is carried out to identify the values that match the experi­
mental results. The same procedure is used to calibrate the model for the
simulation of an internal combustion engine fueled with methane [74]
that is used as a reference case for the economic and environmental
analyses. In this case, the range of the isentropic efficiencies considered
for the sensitivity analysis is larger compared to the one identifies for
syngas or syngas and methane due to the higher efficiency of methane-
fueled engines. The values identified through the sensitivity analysis and
the comparison between the brake thermal efficiency obtained through
the numerical model and the experimental data are shown in Table 5
and Fig. 8, respectively. For the sake of completeness, the percentage in
volume of syngas and methane in dual-fuel system is 40%-60%.
The electrical and thermal efficiencies of the engine as well as the
electrical and thermal power at different conditions of gasification
temperature and ER, for the cases of syngas engine and duel fuel (syngas
and methane) engine, are shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, respectively. For
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and numerical values of brake
the sake of completeness, the ranges of variation and the value of gasi­
thermal efficiency.
fication temperature and ER in correspondence of which the maximum
efficiency is reached are shown in Table 6.
Sizing it to serve the thermal energy of the drying process, its fuel
The efficiencies slightly vary in the analyzed ranges of gasification
consumption is 0.144 kg/s. This means that syngas in dual-fuel opera­
temperature and ER for both the cases taken into account. Such a vari­
tion allows saving around 45% of methane.
ation is slightly more pronounced for the electrical efficiency rather than
The drying process is carried out at around 160 ◦ C. The thermal
the thermal one with a higher impact of the ER compared to the gasi­
energy for the process is supplied by the syngas cooling, the CHP unit
fication temperature. Focusing on the ER, due to its more significant
and, as mentioned above, the methane boiler when only syngas is
effect, the highest efficiencies, both electrical and thermal, are reached
considered to fuel the engine. As shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, the
at the lowest value taken into account for both the analyzed cases, due to
highest fraction of thermal energy is recovered from the CHP: between
the highest LHV of syngas. The lowest ER allows maximizing also the
51 and 60% when only syngas is used as a fuel, and between 78 and 89%
electrical and thermal power with the dual-fuel engine, whereas when
when the dual-fuel configuration is considered. In both cases, the ER
only syngas is used as a fuel the highest ER appears to be more conve­
variation has the highest impact.
nient, probably due to the higher net primary energy available from
syngas. Finally, as expected, it is worth noticing that dual-fuel operation
allows increasing the engine efficiency, especially the electrical one, due Economic and environmental assessment
to the higher LHV of methane. In terms of electrical energy production,
the analyzed system allows supplying between 9.3 and 10.8% and be­ The system appears to be economically feasible with a SPB that does
tween 28.8 and 30.7% of the WWTP demand when the syngas engine or not exceed 1.4 years in the worst case of those taken into account. As
the dual-fuel engine is used, respectively. shown in Fig. 14, both the SPB and the NPV present a slight variation
For the sake of completeness, the efficiency and the power obtained with gasification temperature especially for the case of the syngas en­
with the methane engine are shown in Table 7. gine, for which the difference between the best and the worst case is
In this case, the electrical energy produced allows supplying 52.4% 0.8%. The highest economic convenience is reached at a gasification
of the WWTP demand. The values related to the engine fueled with temperature equal to 800 ◦ C, in both the analyzed cases. The ER has a
methane are used to carry out the comparative economic and environ­ higher impact, especially for the case of syngas engine, for which the
mental analysis illustrated in Section 3.5. difference between the best and the worst case is around 5%. The highest
economic convenience is reached at an ER equal to 0.35 when only
Thermal drying syngas is used as a fuel and at 0.30 when the dual-fuel configuration is
considered.
The process aims at reducing the moisture content up to 10% to make For the sake of comparison, the economic results related to the en­
the sludge suitable for gasification. When the syngas engine is consid­ gine fueled with methane are calculated. As expected, the SPB, equal to
ered, a methane boiler is employed to supply the thermal demand that is 0.473 y, is lower compared to that obtained for the proposed solutions,
not covered by the engine. Conversely, the dual-fuel system is sized to even with the operating conditions that maximize the economic per­
supply the entire thermal demand of the drying process. The comparison formance. However, in terms of NPV, the proposed solutions are com­
between the mass flow rate of methane used in the syngas engine and parable to the conventional one.
that employed in the dual fuel one is shown in Fig. 11. In both the cases To investigate the economic feasibility of the proposed system, the
and for both the sensitivity analyses, the mass flow rate of methane is investment costs and the annual economic revenues and costs obtained
almost doubled when the dual-fuel engine is employed. However, it has in correspondence of the operating conditions that maximize the eco­
to be taken into account that also electrical energy is produced, nomic performance are illustrated in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16, where also the
increasing both the economic and environmental benefits of the system. results related to the conventional configuration are plotted. For the
As mentioned above, a methane engine is used for comparison. sake of clearness, the cases illustrated in these figures are: syngas engine
(T = 800 ◦ C, ER = 0.3) (a), dual fuel engine (T = 800 ◦ C, ER = 0.3) (b),
syngas engine (T = 780 ◦ C, ER = 0.35) (c), dual fuel engine (T = 780 ◦ C,
Table 5
ER = 0.30) (d), engine fueled with methane (e). The highest investment
Input parameters for the numerical model of the cogeneration unit.
cost of the proposed solution is related to the gasifier, which accounts for
Parameter Syngas, Syngas and methane Methane
86% of total investment costs when only syngas is used as a fuel (cases a
Isentropic expansion coefficient 0.90 0.98 and c) and for 75% for the dual-fuel configurations (cases b and d).
Isentropic compression coefficient 0.80 0.91 Obviously, due to the high impact of the gasifier, the conventional
Combustion efficiency 0.85 0.95
system (case e) is significantly more convenient in terms of investment

9
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 9. Electrical and thermal efficiency and electrical and high temperature (HT) and low temperature (LT) thermal power for the syngas engine: variation with
gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

Fig. 10. Electrical and thermal efficiency and electrical and high temperature (HT) and low temperature (LT) thermal power for the dual-fuel engine: variation with
gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

Table 6
Ranges of variation of electrical and thermal efficiency, electrical and thermal power for both the analyzed cases.
Case Electrical efficiency Thermal efficiency Electrical power, kW Thermal power, kW

Range Max Range Max Range Max Range Max

Syngas engine T sensitivity 0.193–0.197 780 ◦ C 0.493–0.505 840 ◦ C 470–492 800 ◦ C 1116–1173 800 ◦ C
ER sensitivity 0.184–0.209 0.1 0.494–0.506 0.1 424–446 0.4 949–1123 0.4
Dual fuel engine T sensitivity 0.208–0.210 720 ◦ C 0.499–0.503 840 ◦ C 1344–1358 720 ◦ C 2987–3000 840 ◦ C
ER sensitivity 0.205–0.214 0.1 0.499–0.502 0.1 1315–1400 0.1 2964–3026 0.1

energy production almost triples. This, despite the increase in fuel

Table 7 consumption, allows increasing the economic convenience as indicated
Results related to the internal combustion engine fueled with methane.
by the lower SPB and the higher NPV. The significant effect of the rev­
Parameter Unit Value enue due to the electrical energy production is noticeable also for the
Electrical efficiency – 0.332 case of the conventional system (case e). However, this effect does not
Thermal efficiency – 0.416 allow balancing the absence of the revenue due to the avoided sludge
Electrical power kW 2389 disposal that is obtained through gasification. Indeed disposal of sewage
High-temperature thermal power kW 784
Low-temperature thermal power kW 2213
sludge has become a critical issue for WWTPs due to its relevant
financial and energy cost [78]. Moreover, the disposal cost has increased
due to the increase of sludge production and the concern for its land­
costs. filling, since European legislation is promoting waste reuse and recov­
The cost for the CHP system doubles in the dual-fuel configurations ery. As an example, recently in Italy it exceeded 150 €/t [79]. For this
(cases b and d) compared to the solutions where syngas is used as a fuel reason, the effect of sludge disposal cost on the economic convenience of
(cases a and c). However, at the same time, the revenue from electrical the proposed system is assessed, by taking into account also the

10
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 11. Mass flow rate of methane used in the boiler coupled to the syngas engine and in the dual-fuel engine: variation with gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

Fig. 12. Thermal power for sludge drying in the configuration of the boiler coupled to the syngas engine: contribution of syngas cooling (Qsyngas), CHP (QCHP), and
boiler (QBoiler), variation with gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

Fig. 13. Thermal power for sludge drying in the dual-fuel engine configuration: contribution of syngas cooling (Qsyngas) and CHP (QCHP), variation with gasification
temperature (i) and ER (ii).

11
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 14. Simple Pay Back and Net Present Value: variation with gasification temperature (a) and ER (b).

For the sake of comparison, the effect of methane cost fluctuation is

assessed also for the conventional solution, Fig. 18.
At the highest specific costs taken into account, the SPB decreases to
1.03 y for the syngas engine and 0.96 y for the dual-fuel configuration.
Therefore, even if the proposed solution appears to be economically
feasible, its SPB is still higher than the SPB obtained for the conventional
solution at the highest specific cost of methane, which is 0.513 y.
However, the proposed solution is more environmentally friendly than
the conventional one due to the use of waste biomass-derived fuel as
indicated by the PER, whose values are illustrated in Fig. 19.
Except for the lowest ER taken into account, the PER of the proposed
solution is higher than the one obtained for the conventional solution
that is 0.732. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that except for the
dual-fuel configuration analyzed at different ERs, the most economically
convenient solution corresponds to the one that maximizes the PER. For
the sake of completeness, the ranges of variation and the value of gasi­
fication temperature and ER in correspondence of which the minimum
SPB and the maximum values of NPV and PER are reached are shown in
Table 8.
Fig. 15. Investment costs.
Conclusion

In this paper, the energy and economic analysis of an integrated

combined heat and power system based on sewage sludge gasification is
proposed. Syngas produced from gasification is used as a fuel in an in­
ternal combustion engine for combined heat and power production.
Gasification is investigated through sensitivity analyses to identify the
temperature and the equivalence ratio that maximize the energy per­
formance of the system. Different solutions are compared to identify the
most economically convenient and environmentally-friendly configu­
ration: the internal combustion engine is supposed to be fuelled with
syngas or with syngas and methane. The proposed solutions are also
compared to a conventional layout based on a cogeneration engine
fueled with methane that produces the same amount of thermal energy
that is used to supply sludge thermal drying.
The main results of the analysis are reported below.

1. Lower heating value and mass flow rate of syngas are significantly
influenced by the equivalence ratio, whereas the process tempera­
ture has a slight effect on these parameters. The trend of the lower
Fig. 16. Annual economic revenues and costs. heating value significantly influences the primary power of syngas
that increases with the process temperature and decreases with the
variation of methane cost that fluctuates over time. The results of this equivalence ratio.
analysis are shown in Fig. 17, where the variation of SPB with specific 2. Considering the cogeneration unit, the dual-fuel operation allows
costs of sludge disposal and methane for the best cases identified increasing the engine efficiency, especially the electrical one, due to
through the previous analysis (a, b, c and d) is reported. the higher energy content of methane. In terms of electrical energy

12
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 17. Variation of Simple Pay Back with specific costs of sludge disposal and methane for the cases a, b, c and d.

3. From an economical point of view, all the proposed solutions are

convenient, with a simple payback period lower than 1.4 years. To
take into account the variability of fossil fuels tariff and sludge
disposal cost during the last years, the effect of these costs is analyzed
finding that the simple payback period of the proposed system could
decrease to around 1 year.
4. The use of cogeneration systems is extremely convenient in waste­
water treatment plants that require thermal and electrical energy at
the same time. Self-production of electrical energy and use of ther­
mal energy for sludge treatment allow a significant reduction of
operational costs.

Due to the attractive results, the proposed system will be further

analyzed through an exergy approach to assess the exergy destruction
and optimize the process to improve its overall thermodynamic
efficiency.

Fig. 18. Variation of Simple Pay Back with the specific cost of methane for the
methane engine. CRediT authorship contribution statement

production, the analyzed solutions allow supplying between 9.3 and Paola Brachi: Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review
10.8% and between 28.8 and 30.7% of the wastewater treatment & editing. Simona Di Fraia: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
plant demand when the syngas engine or the dual-fuel engine is used, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft,
respectively. Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Nicola Massarotti: Re­
sources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision,

13
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

Fig. 19. PER: variation with gasification temperature (i) and ER (ii).

Table 8
Ranges of variation of SPB, NPV and PER for both the analyzed cases.
Case SPB NPV, M€ PER

Range Min Range Max Range Max

Syngas engine T sensitivity 1.30–1.31 800 ◦ C 21.1–21.6 800 ◦ C 0.967–1.08 800 ◦ C

ER sensitivity 1.30–1.37 0.35 19.9–2.13 0.35 0.695–1.08 0.35
Dual fuel engine T sensitivity 1.16–1.17 800 ◦ C 27.8–28.1 800 ◦ C 1.23–1.29 800 ◦ C
ER sensitivity 1.16–1.19 0.30 27.4–28.0 0.30 1.08–1.30 0.35

Funding acquisition. Laura Vanoli: Resources, Supervision, Funding [8] Werle S. Sewage sludge gasification process for clean and sustainable environment.
Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain. 2016;1:35. https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/
acquisition.
2016042.
[9] Werle S. Sewage sludge gasification: Theoretical and experimental investigation.
Environ. Prot. Eng. Jun. 2014;39. https://doi.org/10.5277/EPE130203.
Declaration of Competing Interest [10] Cotana F, Vittori S, Marseglia G, Medaglia CM, Coccia V, Petrozzi A, et al. Pollutant
emissions of a biomass gasifier inside a multifuel energy plant. Atmos. Pollut. Res.
2019;10(6):2000–9.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [11] Buckley JC, Schwarz PM. Renewable Energy from Gasification of Manure: An
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Innovative Technology in Search of Fertile Policy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003;84
(1):111–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022847416139.
the work reported in this paper.
[12] Morris M, Waldheim L. Energy recovery from solid waste fuels using advanced
gasification technology. Waste Manag. Oct. 1998;18(6–8):557–64. https://doi.org/
Acknowledgements 10.1016/S0956-053X(98)00146-9.
[13] Yassin L, Lettieri P, Simons SJR, Germanà A. Techno-economic performance of
energy-from-waste fluidized bed combustion and gasification processes in the UK
The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial financial support of context. Chem. Eng. J. Feb. 2009;146(3):315–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PANACEA Project “Poligenerazione Alimentata con biomasse da rifiuti CEJ.2008.06.014.
[14] Tan ST, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT, Taib MR, Ho CS. Energy, economic and
Negli impianti di depurazione delle Acque refluE urbAne”, CUP: environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal
I42F16000170005, supported by “Fondo per la ricerca di sistema solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers. Manag. Sep. 2015;
elettrico”. 102:111–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2015.02.010.
[15] Dong J, Tang Y, Nzihou A, Chi Y, Weiss-Hortala E, Ni M, et al. Comparison of
waste-to-energy technologies of gasification and incineration using life cycle
References assessment: Case studies in Finland, France and China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;203:
287–300.
[16] Tang Y, Dong J, Li G, Zheng Y, Chi Y, Nzihou A, et al. Environmental and exergetic
[1] Spinosa L, Ayol A, Baudez J-C, Canziani R, Jenicek P, Leonard A, et al. Sustainable
life cycle assessment of incineration- and gasification-based waste to energy
and Innovative Solutions for Sewage Sludge Management. Water Dec. 2011;3(2):
systems in China. Energy 2020;205:118002.
702–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/w3020702.
[17] Zhu W, Xu ZR, Li L, He C. The behavior of phosphorus in sub- and super-critical
[2] Jiang G, Xu D, Hao B, Liu Lu, Wang S, Wu Z. Thermochemical methods for the
water gasification of sewage sludge. Chem. Eng. J. Jun. 2011;171(1):190–6.
treatment of municipal sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;311:127811.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2011.03.090.
[3] Werle S, Sobek S. Gasification of sewage sludge within a circular economy
[18] Dogru M, Midilli A, Howarth CR. Gasification of sewage sludge using a throated
perspective: a Polish case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019;26(35):35422–32.
downdraft gasifier and uncertainty analysis. Fuel Process. Technol. Jan. 2002;75
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05897-2.
(1):55–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00234-X.
[4] Liu Y, Lin R, Ren J. Developing a life cycle composite footprint index for
[19] Midilli A, Dogru M, Howarth CR, Ling MJ, Ayhan T. Combustible gas production
sustainability prioritization of sludge-to-energy alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;
from sewage sludge with a downdraft gasifier. Energy Convers. Manag. Jan. 2001;
281:124885.
42(2):157–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(00)00053-4.
[5] Teoh SK, Li LY. Feasibility of alternative sewage sludge treatment methods from a
[20] Petersen I, Werther J. Experimental investigation and modeling of gasification of
lifecycle assessment (LCA) perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;247:119495.
sewage sludge in the circulating fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Process. Process
[6] Di Fraia S, Macaluso A, Massarotti N, Vanoli L. Energy, exergy and economic
Intensif. Jul. 2005;44(7):717–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2004.09.001.
analysis of a novel geothermal energy system for wastewater and sludge treatment.
[21] Hanchate N, Ramani S, Mathpati CS, Dalvi VH. Biomass gasification using dual
Energy Convers. Manag. 2019;195:533–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fluidized bed gasification systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;280:123148.
enconman.2019.05.035.
[22] Gao N, Kamran K, Quan C, Williams PT. Thermochemical conversion of sewage
[7] Di Fraia S, Macaluso A, Massarotti N, Vanoli L. Geothermal energy for wastewater
sludge: A critical review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2020;79:100843.
and sludge treatment: An exergoeconomic analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020;
224:113180.

14
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

[23] Roche E, De Andrés JM, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Air and air-steam gasification of surplus syngas storage in a rural zone in Colombia. Sustainable Energy Technol
sewage sludge. The influence of dolomite and throughput in tar production and Assess 2021;44:101075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101075.
composition. Fuel Jan. 2014;115:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [47] Koch K, Höfner P, Gaderer M. Techno-economic system comparison of a wood gas
FUEL.2013.07.003. and a natural gas CHP plant in flexible district heating with a dynamic simulation
[24] Judex JW, Gaiffi M, Burgbacher HC. Gasification of dried sewage sludge: Status of model. Energy 2020;202:117710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117710.
the demonstration and the pilot plant. Waste Manag. Apr. 2012;32(4):719–23. [48] Cirillo D, Di Palma M, La Villetta M, Macaluso A, Mauro A, Vanoli L. A novel
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2011.12.023. biomass gasification micro-cogeneration plant: Experimental and numerical
[25] Manyà JJ, Sánchez JL, Ábrego J, Gonzalo A, Arauzo J. Influence of gas residence analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021;243:114349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
time and air ratio on the air gasification of dried sewage sludge in a bubbling enconman.2021.114349.
fluidised bed. Fuel Oct. 2006;85(14–15):2027–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [49] Alves O, Calado L, Panizio RM, Gonçalves M, Monteiro E, Brito P. Techno-
FUEL.2006.04.008. economic study for a gasification plant processing residues of sewage sludge and
[26] Mun TY, Kim JW, Kim JS. Air gasification of dried sewage sludge in a two-stage solid recovered fuels. Waste Manag. Jul. 2021;131:148–62. https://doi.org/
gasifier: Part 1. The effects and reusability of additives on the removal of tar and 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.026.
hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy May 2013;38(13):5226–34. https:// [50] de Andrés JM, Vedrenne M, Brambilla M, Rodríguez E. Modeling and model
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.10.120. performance evaluation of sewage sludge gasification in fluidized-bed gasifiers
[27] Manyà JJ, Sánchez JL, Gonzalo A, Arauzo J. Air Gasification of Dried Sewage using Aspen Plus. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2019;69(1):23–33. https://doi.org/
Sludge in a Fluidized Bed: Effect of the Operating Conditions and In-Bed Use of 10.1080/10962247.2018.1500404.
Alumina. Energy Fuels Mar. 2005;19(2):629–36. https://doi.org/10.1021/ [51] Raibhole VN, Sapali SN. Simulation and parametric analysis of cryogenic oxygen
ef0497614. plant for biomass gasification. Mech. Eng. Res. 2012;2(2):97.
[28] G. Marseglia, B. F. Vasquez-Pena, C. M. Medaglia, and R. Chacartegui, “Alternative [52] Zheng X, Chen W, Ying Z, Huang J, Ji S, Wang B. Thermodynamic investigation on
Fuels for Combined Cycle Power Plants: An Analysis of Options for a Location in gasification performance of sewage sludge-derived hydrochar: Effect of
India,” Sustainability , vol. 12, no. 8. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12083330. hydrothermal carbonization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Apr. 2019;44(21):10374–83.
[29] Elsner W, Wysocki M, Niegodajew P, Borecki R. Experimental and economic study https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2019.02.200.
of small-scale CHP installation equipped with downdraft gasifier and internal [53] Bennamoun L, Arlabosse P, Léonard A. Review on fundamental aspect of
combustion engine. Appl. Energy Sep. 2017;202:213–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/ application of drying process to wastewater sludge. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
j.apenergy.2017.05.148. Dec. 2013;28:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2013.07.043.
[30] Szwaja S, Kovacs VB, Bereczky A, Penninger A. Sewage sludge producer gas [54] Keey RB. Drying: principles and practice, vol. 13. Elsevier; 2013.
enriched with methane as a fuel to a spark ignited engine. Fuel Process. Technol. [55] Danish M, Jing H, Pin Z, Ziyang L, Pansheng Q. A new drying kinetic model for
Jun. 2013;110:160–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.12.008. sewage sludge drying in presence of CaO and NaClO. Appl. Therm. Eng. Aug. 2016;
[31] Chaos M, Dryer FL. Syngas Combustion Kinetics and Applications. Combust. Sci. 106:141–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2016.05.191.
Technol. May 2008;180(6):1053–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/ [56] Gagliano A, Nocera F, Bruno M, Cardillo G. Development of an Equilibrium-based
00102200801963011. Model of Gasification of Biomass by Aspen Plus. Energy Procedia Mar. 2017;111:
[32] Shah A, Srinivasan R, D. Filip To S, Columbus EP. Performance and emissions of a 1010–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.264.
spark-ignited engine driven generator on biomass based syngas. Bioresour Technol [57] Kumar A, Noureddini H, Demirel Y, Jones DD, Hanna MA. Simulation of corn
2010;101(12):4656–61. stover and distillers grains gasification with Aspen Plus. Trans. ASABE 2009;52(6):
[33] Tinaut FV, Melgar A, Horrillo A, De La Rosa AD. Method for predicting the 1989–95.
performance of an internal combustion engine fuelled by producer gas and other [58] F. Paviet, F. Chazarenc, and M. Tazerout, “Thermo chemical equilibrium modelling
low heating value gases. Fuel Process. Technol. Jan. 2006;87(2):135–42. https:// of a biomass gasifying process using ASPEN PLUS,” Int. J. Chem. React. Eng., vol. 7,
doi.org/10.1016/J.FUPROC.2005.08.009. no. 1, 2009.
[34] Mun TY, Kim JS. Air gasification of dried sewage sludge in a two-stage gasifier. [59] Ramzan N, Ashraf A, Naveed S, Malik A. Simulation of hybrid biomass gasification
Part 2: Calcined dolomite as a bed material and effect of moisture content of dried using Aspen plus: A comparative performance analysis for food, municipal solid
sewage sludge for the hydrogen production and tar removal. Int. J. Hydrogen and poultry waste. Biomass Bioenergy Oct. 2011;35(9):3962–9. https://doi.org/
Energy May 2013;38(13):5235–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. 10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2011.06.005.
IJHYDENE.2013.02.073. [60] Gumz W. Gas producers and blast furnaces: theory and methods of calculation.
[35] Sornek K, Żołądek M, Goryl W, Figaj R. The operation of a micro-scale cogeneration Wiley; 1950.
system prototype – A comprehensive experimental and numerical analysis. Fuel [61] Mutlu ÖÇ, Zeng T. Challenges and opportunities of modeling biomass gasification
2021;295:120563. in Aspen Plus: A review. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2020;43(9):1674–89.
[36] Groß B, Eder C, Grziwa P, Horst J, Kimmerle K. Energy recovery from sewage [62] Ahmed AMA, Salmiaton A, Choong TSY, Wan Azlina WAKG. Review of kinetic and
sludge by means of fluidised bed gasification. Waste Manag. Jan. 2008;28(10): equilibrium concepts for biomass tar modeling by using Aspen Plus. Renew Sustain
1819–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2007.08.016. Energy Rev 2015;52:1623–44.
[37] Kokalj F, Arbiter B, Samec N. Sewage sludge gasification as an alternative energy [63] Font Palma C. Modelling of tar formation and evolution for biomass gasification: A
storage model. Energy Convers. Manag. Oct. 2017;149:738–47. https://doi.org/ review. Appl Energy 2013;111:129–41.
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.076. [64] Li C, Suzuki K. Tar property, analysis, reforming mechanism and model for biomass
[38] Indrawan N, Thapa S, Bhoi PR, Huhnke RL, Kumar A. Engine power generation and gasification—An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Apr. 2009;13(3):594–604.
emission performance of syngas generated from low-density biomass. Energy https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2008.01.009.
Convers. Manag. Sep. 2017;148:593–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [65] Abdelrahim A, Brachi P, Ruoppolo G, Fraia SD, Vanoli L. Experimental and
enconman.2017.05.066. Numerical Investigation of Biosolid Gasification: Equilibrium-Based Modeling with
[39] Li CY, Shen Ye, Wu JY, Dai YJ, Wang C-H. Experimental and modeling Emphasis on the Effects of Different Pretreatment Methods. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
investigation of an integrated biomass gasifier–engine–generator system for power 2020;59(1):299–307. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b0390210.1021/acs.
generation and waste heat recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019;199:112023. iecr.9b03902.s001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112023. [66] Damartzis T, Michailos S, Zabaniotou A. Energetic assessment of a combined heat
[40] Baratieri M, Baggio P, Bosio B, Grigiante M, Longo GA. The use of biomass syngas and power integrated biomass gasification-internal combustion engine system by
in IC engines and CCGT plants: A comparative analysis. Appl. Therm. Eng. Nov. using Aspen Plus®. Fuel Process. Technol. Mar. 2012;95:37–44. https://doi.org/
2009;29(16):3309–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.003. 10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.11.010.
[41] Colantoni A, Villarini M, Monarca D, Carlini M, Mosconi EM, Bocci E, et al. [67] A. M. L. Násner et al., “Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) production and gasification in a
Economic analysis and risk assessment of biomass gasification CHP systems of pilot plant integrated with an Otto cycle ICE through Aspen plusTM modelling:
different sizes through Monte Carlo simulation. Energy Rep 2021;7:1954–61. Thermodynamic and economic viability,” Waste Management, vol. 69. Elsevier Ltd,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.028. pp. 187–201, Nov. 01, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.006.
[42] Oreggioni GD, Brandani S, Luberti M, Baykan Y, Friedrich D, Ahn H. CO2 capture [68] M. Villarini, V. Marcantonio, A. Colantoni, and E. Bocci, “Sensitivity analysis of
from syngas by an adsorption process at a biomass gasification CHP plant: Its different parameters on the performance of a CHP internal combustion engine
comparison with amine-based CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control Apr. 2015; system fed by a biomass waste gasifier,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 4, 2019, doi:
35:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.008. 10.3390/en12040688.
[43] Patuzzi F, Prando D, Vakalis S, Rizzo AM, Chiaramonti D, Tirler W, et al. Small- [69] Segurado R, Pereira S, Correia D, Costa M. Techno-economic analysis of a
scale biomass gasification CHP systems: Comparative performance assessment and trigeneration system based on biomass gasification. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
monitoring experiences in South Tyrol (Italy). Energy 2016;112:285–93. https:// Apr. 2019;103:501–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.01.008.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.077. [70] Lantz M. The economic performance of combined heat and power from biogas
[44] Furubayashi T, Nakata T. Analysis of woody biomass utilization for heat, produced from manure in Sweden – A comparison of different CHP technologies.
electricity, and CHP in a regional city of Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;290:125665. Appl. Energy Oct. 2012;98:502–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125665. APENERGY.2012.04.015.
[45] Chang CT, Costa M, La Villetta M, Macaluso A, Piazzullo D, Vanoli L. Thermo- [71] A. Porcu, S. Sollai, D. Marotto, M. Mureddu, F. Ferrara, and A. Pettinau, “Techno-
economic analyses of a Taiwanese combined CHP system fuelled with syngas from Economic Analysis of a Small-Scale Biomass-to-Energy BFB Gasification-Based
rice husk gasification. Energy Jan. 2019;167:766–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. System,” Energies , vol. 12, no. 3. 2019, doi: 10.3390/en12030494.
energy.2018.11.012. [72] Żołądek M, Figaj R, Sornek K. Energy analysis of a micro-scale biomass
[46] Gamarra Quintero JS, Gonzalez CAD, Pacheco Sandoval L. Exergoeconomic cogeneration system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021;236:114079.
analysis of a simulated system of biomass gasification-based power generation with [73] Migliaccio R, et al. Sewage Sludge Gasification in a Fluidized Bed: Experimental
Investigation and Modeling. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021;60(13):5034–47.

15
P. Brachi et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 13 (2022) 100171

[74] Ma F, Wang Y, Liu H, Li Y, Wang J, Zhao S. Experimental study on thermal [77] Gil-Lalaguna N, Sánchez JL, Murillo MB, Atienza-Martínez M, Gea G. Energetic
efficiency and emission characteristics of a lean burn hydrogen enriched natural assessment of air-steam gasification of sewage sludge and of the integration of
gas engine. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy Dec. 2007;32(18):5067–75. https://doi.org/ sewage sludge pyrolysis and air-steam gasification of char. Energy Nov. 2014;76:
10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2007.07.048. 652–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.08.061.
[75] Werle S. Impact of feedstock properties and operating conditions on sewage sludge [78] Capodaglio A, Olsson G. Energy Issues in Sustainable Urban Wastewater
gasification in a fixed bed gasifier. Waste Manag. Res. 2014;32(10):954–60. Management: Use, Demand Reduction and Recovery in the Urban Water Cycle.
[76] Yepes Maya DM, Silva Lora EE, Andrade RV, Ratner A, Martínez Angel JD. Biomass Sustainability Dec. 2019;12:266. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010266.
gasification using mixtures of air, saturated steam, and oxygen in a two-stage [79] D. Berardi, M. Tallarigo, and S. Traini, “I fanghi della depurazione: l’acqua entra
downdraft gasifier. Assessment using a CFD modeling approach. Renewable Energy nell’economia circolare,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.refricerche.it/
2021;177:1014–30. fileadmin/Materiale_sito/contenuti/Contributo_107.pdf.

16