Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Multi-objective optimization of SNG production from microalgae

through hydrothermal gasification
Alberto Mian a , Adriano V. Ensinas a,b , François Marechal a,∗
a
Industrial Process and Energy System Engineering Group (IPESE), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
b
Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC), Av. dos Estados 5001, Bloco B 7◦ Andar, CEP 09210-580 Santo Andre, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The conversion of microalgae biomass into biofuels is a quite well explored field of research. Due to
Received 4 October 2013 high photosynthetic efficiency, microalgae are considered as a potential feedstock for next-generations
Received in revised form 9 January 2015 biofuel conversion processes.
Accepted 19 January 2015
This paper addresses the thermochemical conversion of highly diluted microalgae feedstock into syn-
Available online 28 January 2015
thetic natural gas (SNG) through supercritical hydrothermal gasification. The complete conversion chain
is modeled including the cultivation phase, settling ponds, centrifuges, catalytic hydrothermal gasifica-
Keywords:
tion with salt separation unit and SNG purification system. Thermodynamic, economic and environmental
Microalgae
Hydrothermal gasification
models are considered for each process step, in order to solve a Mixed Integer Non Linear Programming
Synthetic natural gas (MINLP) optimization problem.
Process design The problem is solved by applying a two steps decomposition approach, using Multi Objective Evolu-
Thermo-economic optimization tionary Algorithm with Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP). It is finally demonstrated that coupling
microalgae cultivation systems with hydrothermal gasification (HTG) and waste energy recovery utilities
leads to high energy/exergy efficiencies, emissions reduction and globally better sustainable processes.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Open and closed cultivation systems have been investigated in

In this century a major issue of our society is the need to reduce
its strong dependence from fossil fuels as source of energy and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The development of biofuels is
a key requirement for this purpose and microalgae are currently
considered as promising feedstock for next-generation renewable
fuels production (Brennan and Owende, 2010; Sierra et al., 2008;
Campbell et al., 2011). The high photo-conversion efficiency of
these autotrophic organisms leads to growth rates from 2 to 5
times higher than the ones of woody biomass, depending on the
cultivation technology.
Abbreviations: BM, biomass; GWP, Global Warming Potential; HHV, higher heat-
ing value; HP, heat pump; HTG, hydrothermal gasification; HRT, hydraulic retention
time; LCIA, Life Cycle Impact Assessment; LCI, life cycle inventory; LHV, lower
heating value; MER, Minimum Energy Requirement; MILP, mixed integer linear pro-
gramming; MINLP, mixed integer non linear programming; MM, molecular mass;
MOO, multi-objective optimization; NG, natural gas; NGCC, Natural Gas Combined
Cycle; OPEX, operating expenses or operating costs; SCWG, Supercritical Water
Gasification; SNG, synthetic natural gas; SMR, steam methane reforming; WGS,
water–gas shift.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: francois.marechal@epfl.ch (F. Marechal).
the past decades, the first ones being largely used in most of the
existing commercial plants mainly because of their simplicity and
lower costs. New photo-bioreactor technologies are being inves-
tigated (Richardson et al., 2012; Ketheesan and Nirmalakhandan,
2012; Norsker et al., 2011) and show promising production yields.
Large scale applications of the latter are still prohibitive, mainly
because of high investment costs.
In this context, efficient energy conversion of wet biomass such
as microalgae is challenging since the biomass is available at solid
concentrations below 5 g/L.
The conversion of microalgae into biofuels is a well-established
topic in scientific literature. Several studies focus their attention on
microalgae to biodiesel conversion processes (Clarens et al., 2010;
Sialve et al., 2009; Harun et al., 2011), few of them consider the
option of producing SNG from waste-products of biodiesel plants
(Haiduc et al., 2009; Stucki et al., 2009; Gassner et al., 2011). The
complete conversion of microalgae feedstock into SNG has been
investigated by Stucki et al. (2009) but neither optimization of pro-
cess performances nor environmental and economic analyzes have
been performed.
Regarding techno-economic studies on the topic, a sensitivity
analysis considering the production of SNG from microalgae has
been presented by Brandenberger et al. (2013), but no specific

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.01.013
0098-1354/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183 171

with targets below 70% of water content. The adoption of a low

Nomenclature temperature process using catalytic bed gasification is considered
through Catalytic Supercritical Water Gasification (SCWG).
Greek letters
This technology can convert the feedstock carbon source into
˛ activity coefficient for alkalinity calculation
methane rich syngas and to recover most of the nutrients, water and
ˇ investment cost scaling factor
carbon dioxide which can be re-injected in the microalgae cultiva-
h0 lower heating value of the fuel [kJ/kg]
tion system, which is quite attractive with respect to the purposes
k0 exergy value [kJ/kg]
of the paper. The thermal and electricity requirements are satisfied
Tmin minimum temperature difference in heat exchange
by considering heat and power recovery utilities and by accounting
a growth rate [d−1 ]
the consumption of part of the produced SNG. A compact represen-
max maximum growth rate [d−1 ]
tation of the control volume of the considered conversion plant,
 energy efficiency [–]
showing the main steps of each process and considered type of
ε exergy efficiency [–]
utilities, is depicted in Fig. 1.
 temperature of water in open pond [K]
In the following sections the most important aspects of model-
 capital investment annualisation factor [–]
ing the plant and its performances will be presented. In addition,
optimization of a superstructure model will be carried out by
Roman letters
applying existing methodologies and considering multi objective
A area of the pond
optimization. Compared to existing literature in the field, the
Alk alkalinity [eq L−1 ]
methods here applied provide novelty in the optimal design of
C Cost [M$]
microalgae to SNG plants, showing key design specifications and
CO2aq dissolved CO2 [mol L−1 ]
the tradeoff between capital cost and productivity with associated
D gas diffusivity [m2 /s]
environmental impact.
dz infinitesimal depth element [m]
K total inorganic carbon [mol L−1 ]
Kc total dissolved carbon [mol L−1 ] 2. Process modeling
KNA total dissolved nitrogen [mol L−1 ]
NT total nitrogen [mol L−1 ] Following a systematic process design methodology, thermo-
Ė Mechanical/electrical power [kW] economic process models are considered for each process unit.
Ke extinction coefficient Mass balance, energy balance, compounds specific equations and
i interest rate [%] cost calculations are performed for each of the process steps and
Is saturation light intensity [MJ m−1 d−1] for a set of utilities. Thermodynamic, economic and environmental
Id spatial average light intensity [MJ m−1 d−1] models are developed for the following processes:
ṁ mass flow [kg/s]
P Pressure [bar] - Microalgae cultivation plant and harvesting;
Q̇ Heat [kW] - Hydrothermal gasification process and SNG upgrade (CO2 sepa-
ra production rate [g/L d−1 ] ration);
top operating factor [–] - Utilities: steam network utility, post oxidation steam injected gas
T temperature [K] turbines and boiler;
V volume [m3 ]
xc mass fraction of carbon in the stream
An equation oriented modeling approach is used for the open
Xa microalgae concentration [g/L]
pond model, while the flowsheeting software Belsim Vali (Belsim
Y mass of CO2 per mass of algae [–]
SA, 2014) is used for the model of the other processes and utility
Z Pond depth [m]
units.
During the cultivation phase, the solar radiation allows the
Superscripts
growing process of microalgae. When the desired concentration
+ material energy stream entering the system
of microalgae in the pond is achieved, the harvesting process and
− material energy stream leaving the system
the partial dewatering of algae are considered. The dewatering pro-
cess is accounted fixing the increase in solid content of harvested
Subscripts
microalgae in water from 1% up to 15%. The dewatered stream is
a algae
thus introduced into the hydrothermal gasification plant, where
bio biogenic
thermochemical conversion of carbon by hydrolysis and gasifi-
BM bare module
cation, together with salt separation, is carried out. The syngas
c carbon
upgrade is performed with a hybrid system composed of a water
GR grass root
absorption tower operating at high pressure, followed by a mem-
inv investment
brane separation unit.
In addition to process units, a set of utilities is considered in
order to close thermal energy balance and perform heat and power
design was performed, showing results in terms of ranges of recovery. These utilities are powered by generated off-gases and
values, mostly depending on assumed parameters from literature. combustion of crude SNG in order to fulfill thermal energy needs,
The present paper aims at analyzing the conversion of microalgae using simple burners or post oxidation steam injected gas turbines.
into SNG through hydrothermal gasification, taking into account It is assumed that all available waste off-gases are exploited consid-
energy, economic and environmental aspects related to the whole ering their complete combustion. The remaining thermal energy
energy conversion process. Integrating HTG with microalgae needs are satisfied with fractions of the converted crude SNG.
cultivation is attractive since it would allow processing the high Additionally to these utilities, heat recovery options are accounted
diluted feedstock, with water content between 70% and 90%, thus considering in the energy integration problem the steam network
reducing costs and energy consumption for dewatering biomass model developed by Marechal and Kalitventzeff (1999).
172 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183

Fig. 1. Flow-sheet of the investigated conversion process with recycling options input/output flows.

In the following subchapters the main aspects related to each of Table 1

List of parameters for cultivation model.
the previously mentioned models (considering the control volume
reported in Fig. 1) are presented. Particular attention is given to Parameter Value Parameter Value
the microalgae cultivation model, since the amount of solar radia- Ea 20,000 kW PCO2 3.2 × 10−4 atm
tion that is converted into biomass is of primary importance when Kc 10−6 DCO2 1.7 × 10−9 m2 /s
accounting for the overall system performances, land utilization KNA 10−6 DO2 1.94 × 10−9 m2 /s
and environmental impact. Other models that have been adopted NT 5 × 10−6 mol L−1 kla,O2 0.24 h−1
Id a 17.3 MJ/m2 /d MMCO2 44 g/mol
in this paper are already present in literature, thus a more detailed
Ke1 0.32 xc 0.55
description can be found in the references that will be given in each Ke2 0.03 pH 8.3
sub-chapter. Z 0.3 m Alk 32 × 10−3 meq /L
Xa 0.5 g/L pK1 6.3
Ta 25 ◦ C pK2 10.3
2.1. The mathematical model of microalgae cultivation and a 288 K Apond module 2 ha
dewatering a
Average global solar radiation in North-east Region of Brazil (latitude
09◦ 23 55 S, longitude 40◦ 30 03 W).
The microalgae cultivation model is developed using an equa-
tion oriented modeling approach, considering an open pond system
in which the water surface is exposed to solar radiation. The maximum microalgae growth rate max [d−1 ] is calculated
The photosynthesis process takes place inside a cultivation pond with Eq. (6) (Buhr and Miller, 1983) where Ta [◦ C] is the temperature
which is provided with water, a CO2 -rich gas stream and nutrients. of the water in the pond. In this analysis the pond is assumed to be
The modeling accounts for the growth rate a [d−1 ] according to in thermal equilibrium with ambient air.
Eq. (1) (Yang, 2011), considering CO2 dissolved CO2aq [mol L−1 ] as
 −4034 
max = (9.46 × 105 ) exp (6)
a carbon source. The carbon consumption rate is dictated by the Ta
microalgae growth process and the CO2 -rich gas injection is mini-
The total inorganic carbon (CT) may exist in several inter-
mized in order to close the CO2 balance and to permit the constant
convertible chemical forms shown in the Eq. (7).
growth process without carbon shortage.
The total nitrogen NT is not considered as a limiting factor for the CT = CO2aq + HCO− −2
3 + CO3 (7)
photosynthesis process, being kept at a constant level with addition
of ammonium as nitrogen source. The carbonaceous species are related which each other follow-
  
ing the equilibrium relations described below.
CO2aq NT
a = max fI (1) kH
CO2(g) ←−CO2aq (8)
Kc + CO2aq KNA + NT k1

The light intensity factor fI is calculated based on Eqs. (2)–(4), k1

H2 CO3 ←−HCO− +
3 +H (9)
where Is is the saturation light intensity, Ia is the spatial average
light intensity in the pond [MJ/m2 /d] following Beer–Lambert’s HCO−
k2
−2 +
3 ←−CO3 + H (10)
law, Z is the pond depth [m] and Id is the daily surface light inten-
sity [MJ/m2 /d]. The extinction coefficient Ke is correlated with the Although HCO− 3 (referred to a pH = 3) is easily absorbed by algal
microalgae concentration expected for the system before harvest- cells, CO2aq is reported to be the most preferred source of inorganic
ing Xa [g/L] (Jupsin et al., 2003). carbon (Putt et al., 2011). However, at the pH > 10.3 level, the CO−2
3
Ia
 Ia
 form dominates, the chemical precipitation of salts is highly likely
fI = exp 1− (2) to occur and this could lead to medium deterioration and algal cell
Is Is
injury.
 z
1 Values adopted in this study are shown in Table 1 and Eqs.
Ia = Id exp (−Ke Z)dz (3) (11)–(29) describe the mathematical formulation.
Z 0
H+ = 10−pH (11)
Ke = Ke1 + Ke2 (Xa × 103 ) (4)
OH− = 10−14−pH (12)
The production rate ra [g/L/d] is calculated by Eq. (5).
Moreover, in this study CO2 injection is used to control the pH
ra = a Xa (5) level in the pond as its value must be kept constant in order to
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183 173

increase the solubility of CO2 and to minimize CO2 losses through Fixing the concentration to the value expected before harvesting
the pond surface. the pond, the hydraulic retention time HRT [d] can be calculated as
Alkalinity represents the ability of a solution to neutralize acid the inverse of the specific growth rate (Eq. (26))
and it is a conservative property with respect to changes in CO2 ,
temperature, pressure, or activity coefficients. It can be described 1
HRT = (26)
by the following expression: 

alk = HCO− −2 − + −
3 + 2CO3 + OH − H = ˛1 CT + 2˛2 CT + OH − H
+ Moreover, considering that the system operates with a constant
production of biomass (Ea ) for the HTG system feed, the volumetric
(13) flow rate of the effluent Fa [m3 /d] can be calculated as described
in Eq. (27), where LHVa is the lower heating value of dry, ash free
microalgae produced by the pond [kJ/kg]
Thus, rearranging Eq. (13) and using it in Eq. (7) the following
equations are obtained: Ea
Fa = × 3600 × 24 (27)
alk − OH + H − + LHVa Xa
CT = (14)
˛1 + 2˛2
The total volume Vpond [m3 ] required by the open pond system in
CT order to continuously satisfy gasification process size requirements
HCO−
3 = = ˛1 CT (15)
([H+ ]/k1) + 1 + (k2/[H+ ]) and the required surface area Apond [ha] are calculated by Eqs. (28)
and (29) respectively.
CT
CO−2
3 = ˛2 CT (16)
+ 2
([H ] /k1k2) + 1 + ([H+ ]/k2) Vpond = HRT × Fa (28)

Finally, the quantity of CO2 dissolved is defined by the balance Vpond

Apond = (29)
of carbon species for a certain pH and alkalinity. Z × 104
CT
CO2aq = = ˛0 CT (17) The total number of ponds to be employed is then calculated
1 + (k1/[H + ]) + (k1k2/[H + ]2 ) as a function of the required surface area and the size of single
pond module. At the pond outlet, a resultant mixture containing
Gas exchange with the atmosphere is assumed for the open sys-
water with a certain concentration of microalgae is available. The
tem. The CO2 transferred between the water in the pond and the
inside mixture is assumed as being constantly mixed by a paddle
atmosphere, CO2,loss , is estimated according to Eqs. (18) and (19)
wheel, and provided by a sump system with a CO2 dilution effi-
by Yang (2011). The mass transfer coefficient kla,CO2 is calculated
ciency of 90% (Weissman and Goebel, 1987). The model parameters
based on the value of diffusivity of CO2 and O2 , besides the mass
are summarized in Table 1.
transfer coefficient of the O2 .
Finally, the dewatering process is modeled considering a final
 0.5 dry microalgae concentration of 15% in the water stream. The
DCO2
kla,CO2 = kla,O2 (18) power consumption of the centrifuge is considered constant for
DO2
fixed flow rate, fixed rotation speed, fixed initial and final solids
concentration in input/output. According to technical data (Evodos,
CO2,loss = kla,CO2 × (CO2aq − CO∗2aq ) × 24 × MMCO2 (19)
2012) the centrifuge electricity consumption is considered at
The saturation concentration of CO2 is calculated by Eq. (21) 1 kWh per kilogram of concentrated solid.
considering the Henry’s constant (Eq. (20)) with the temperature
of the pond in Kelvin and the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. 2.2. Hydrothermal gasification and gas cleaning thermodynamic
 −8.1403 + 842.9  models
kH = exp (20)
a + 151.5
The catalytic hydrothermal gasification process together with
CO∗2aq = kH × PCO2 (21) high pressure absorption tower plant, were modeled using Belsim
Vali in previous work (Gassner et al., 2011). The catalytic hydro-
The carbon balance in [g/L/d] is closed considering the CO2 losses thermal gasification plant allows estimating energy and material
through the surface of the pond, the carbon uptake by the microal- process needs for a given feedstock flow rate input, with fixed solid
gae biomass growth (CO2,bio ) and the CO2 dissolved in the water content and composition, according to the previously presented
that leaves the system with the effluent (CO2,out ). Eq. (22) shows microalgae cultivation and dewatering model. The gasification unit
the carbon balance that defines the amount of CO2 to be injected in is fed with microalgae biomass slurry that leaves the dewatering
the pond (CO2,in ). unit with 15% of solid content. A 20 MW biomass input is consid-
ered in this paper as design specification for the plant size with
CO2,in = CO2,loss + CO2,bio + CO2,out (22)
continuous biomass production by the modular cultivation system.
The amount of required CO2 per mass unit of produced The feedstock is thermo-chemically converted into methane-
microalgae (Ya ) is defined based on microalgae carbon content xc rich syngas through a three step process, including hydrolysis, salt
considering the ratio of CO2 and Carbon molar weights. separation and gasification reactors. In this case the same modeling
approach presented by Luterbacher et al. (2008) and Gassner et al.
CO2,bio = a Xa Ya (23) (2011) is followed. The main assumptions and considerations about
 44  the model are:
Ya = xc (24)
12
- Ash free biomass composition;
CO2aq MMCO2 - The conversion of biomass into CH4 and CO2 is based on the over-
CO2,out = (25)
HRT all net reaction:
174 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183
Table 2
List of independent variables of HTG model.
Parameter Value
Input energy 20
Input biomass concentration 15
Operating pressure 250
Salt separation input, T 653
Salt separation maximum temperature 770
Salt separation: Tss , int 25
Salt separation: Tss , bottom 25
Salt separation: Tss , top 35
Inlet temperature HTG reactor 673
Outlet temperature HTG reactor 673
Pump isentropic efficiency 80
CH1.35 O0.63 + 0.3475H2 O → 0.511CH4 + 0.48CO2 ;
- The hT-profiles are calculated considering Duan EOS and Lee-
Kesler equations of state, following Gassner et al. (2011)
approach;
- 10% of dry biomass is considered lost in the salt separation step,
thus leaves the system together with the salt-slurry;
- The gasification process takes place in a downstream fixed bed
catalytic reactor, which operate using a Ni/C catalyst;
- Chemical reactions are considered at equilibrium in the catalytic
gasification step;
- Salt concentration at the separator outlet is calculated consider-
ing Leusbrock et al. (2008) correlation;
- Catalyst deactivation due to sulfur presence in the gasification
step is accounted for;
- Pressure losses are neglected;
- All process thermal units are considered adiabatic;
A graphical description of the HTG process, highlighting mass
and energy streams is given in Fig. 2.
A key aspect related to the energy needs and performances of
the hydrothermal gasification process is the salt separator unit. The
separation efficiency, in fact, highly affects the catalyst poisoning
inside the reactor. Several studies by Schubert et al. (2010a, 2010b,
2012) analyze the separation of different types of salts in supercrit-
ical conditions. The geometry and the temperature profiles of the
atmosphere inside the separator, as well as the heating medium,
are reported in Fig. 3 (Gassner et al., 2011).
The temperature levels (i.e. the T values) are accounted for as
decision variables of the multi-objective optimization problem.
The flowsheet allows calculating the temperature-enthalpy pro-
file of the concerned stream, accounting for biomass hydrolysis, salt
separation and gasification at equilibrium conditions, by solving
mass and energy balances. The list of independent variables of the
model that need to be specified in order to solve the set of modeling
equations is reported in Table 2.
The gas product separation system is analyzed considering
a water absorption column coupled with a membrane for CO2
removal. The flowsheet of the considered gas separation process is
depicted in Fig. 4. The possibility of using gas and liquid expansion
systems is considered in order to maximize power recovery from
high pressure process streams, improving the system efficiency.
The final product is a grid quality SNG, the methane content is set
as independent variable at 96%vol and a pressure level of 70 bars
is considered. The water separated in the gas purification steps is
assumed to be available for the microalgae cultivation.
The separation process, depicted in Fig. 1, generates waste-CO2 -
rich off-gases that present methane and hydrogen content. The use
of these gases in utilities such as burners, gas turbines, cogeneration
systems, is accounted for in order to evaluate the overall process
performances. In addition, combustion products generated from
the use of waste gases and additional fuel that have to be supplied
Table 3
List of independent variables of the SNG purification system model.
Unit Parameter Value Unit
MW Operating pressure of water adsorption tower 250 Bar
% CH4 concentration at tower output 94 %vol
Bar CH4 concentration at grid quality 96 %vol
K SNG grid pressure 70 Bar
K Number of stages in water adsorption tower 5 –
K Pump isentropic efficiency 82 %
K Gas expander isentropic efficiency 80 %
K Liquid expander isentropic efficiency 82 %
K
K
%
to the plant are considered as CO2 source for the microalgae culti-
vation system. The combustion of all waste off-gases does not allow
closing the thermal energy balance of the process. As a consequence
the use of CH4 rich gas leaving the absorption tower is considered
as additional source of fuel in order to satisfy Minimum Energy
Requirements (MER) conditions. The choice of burning this crude
product is a strategy to reduce the cost of the membrane syngas
purification step. A graphical description of the separation process,
highlighting mass and energy streams is given in Fig. 4.
The flowsheeting model allows calculating the amount of water
that has to be introduced in the water absorption tower given the
compositions of depleted gases, crude gas product and grid quality
gas (including the Wobbe index verification). The assumed inde-
pendent variables of the model are listed in Table 3. Mass and
energy balance are solved in order to calculate process thermal
streams and electricity requirements or availability. In addition,
two integer variables are introduced to the problem in order to
activate or not the power recovery option for liquid and vapor
phases leaving the water absorption tower. In following paragraphs
it will be shown how these two variables will affect the heat
cascade and, as a direct consequence, the optimization problem
solution.
2.3. Thermodynamic models for the utilities
A set of available models for conversion technologies is defined
in order to close the thermal energy balance of the investigated
system, to minimize (maximize) the amount of electricity con-
sumed (produced) and to analyze the benefits related to heat
recovery and cogeneration options. The considered technologies
are: simple burners, steam-injected post oxidation gas turbines and
a steam network. Burners are modeled using flowsheeting soft-
ware, accounting for combustion air pre-heating and excess air
rate that could also be optimized. The cogeneration technologies
steam injected post oxidation gas turbines are modeled consider-
ing fixed pressure ratio, fixed amounts of steam, and a mass flow
of air in post oxidation which leads to a predefined temperature of
combustion gases. The thermal energy output of this process is, at
design conditions, three times the amount of electricity produced.
The integration of a steam network in the heat cascade problem is
finally introduced in order to reduce heat exchange exergy losses
and generate additional electricity. The Rankine cycle is optimized
by selecting pressure levels and maximum temperature level of the
cycle, the condensation pressure is fixed at 0.05 bar and the possi-
bility of steam extraction from turbine/generator is also accounted
following the model described Marechal and Kalitventzeff (1997).
The flowsheet model of HTG, gas separation system, and utilities
involves 1613 equations (linear and non-linear), 578 independent
variables have been set (i.e. pressure losses, temperature levels,
pressure levels). The set of equations is solved in VALI using a
simultaneous approach.
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183 175

Fig. 2. Hydrothermal gasification process flow-sheet.

Fig. 3. Salt separator scheme and temperature intervals definition for a given temperature profile along the z axis (Gassner et al., 2011).

3. Thermo-environomic performance indicators
3.1. Energy conversion performances
All performance analysis is done for a 20 MW dry LHV biomass
input plant. Energy/exergy performances of the process are calcu-
lated by considering different types of efficiencies. The First Law
energy efficiency tot as defined in Eq. (30) gives the chemical
conversion efficiency considering thermal and mechanical energy
equivalent:
h0fuel,out · ṁfuel,out + Ė −
tot = (30)
h0BM,in · ṁBM,in + Ė +
The NG equivalent energy efficiency expressed in Eq. (31) allows
comparing the value of the produced SNG by considering the
electricity produced/consumed as equivalent saved/burnt SNG in
a reference technology. In order to account for SNG equivalent
electricity a value of εNGCC equal to 55% is considered as exergy
efficiency of a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC).
0 )(Ė − )
h0fuel,out · ṁfuel,out + (1/NGCC)(h0NG /kNG
eq = 0 )E +
(31)
h0BM,in · ṁBiomass,in + (1/NGCC)(h0NG /kNG
The exergy efficiency expressed in Eq. (32) accounts First and
Second laws by considering exergy value of the produced SNG and
biomass feedstock according to Szargut and Styrylska correlations
as well as net electricity consumption/production.
kf0 · ṁ− + Ė −
ε= i fi
(32)
0
kBM,in · ṁBM,dry + Ė +
In order to compare the solar energy to biofuel conversion effi-
ciency of the investigated system with other biomass cultures,
176 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183

Fig. 4. Separation process flow-sheet.

other two performance indicators are defined. The sun-to-fuel Table 4

Assumptions for the economic analysis.
energy efficiency is expressed in Eq. (33). The calculated values
refer to a specific location where the specific Global Horizontal solar Parameter Value Unit
Radiation (GHR) is taken from, to the open pond area and for an Marshall and Swift index 1473.3
operating time of the process. Expected lifetime 25 years
Interest rate 6 %
(h0fuel,out · ṁfuel,out + Ė − ) · top Yearly operation 8000 h/year
sun to fuel = (33) Operators 4 person
(GHRyearly · Aop ) + Ė + · top Operator’s salary 91,070 $/year
Electricity price (green) 270 $/MWh
The sun-to-fuel exergy efficiency is expressed by Eq. (34)

(kf0 · ṁ−
f
+ Ė − ) · top
εsun to fuel = i i
(34) CBM,i is the bare module cost of the equipment, it refers to the
(Esun · Aop ) + Ė + ) · top installed cost of a general unit accounting for construction material,
operating conditions and indirect expenses; CBM,i0 is the bare mod-
The exergy related to the global horizontal radiation is
ule costs at base conditions; c1 is a factor accounting for fees and
accounted considering the reversible Carnot cycle in between the
additional expenses; c2 represent the costs for site and auxiliaries.
temperature level of the solar surface and the reference tempera-
Bare module costs are represented by equipment design heuris-
ture of 298 K (Jeter, 1981).
tics from Turton (2009) and Ulrich and Vasudevan (2003) that have
the general form of Eq. (37), where FBM is a bare module factor, Cref is
3.2. Economic performances
the purchare costs for a reference equipment size, S represents the
sizing parameter, Sref corresponds to the reference size for which
The total cost associated to the set of process and utility units of
the reference cost is given, and ˇ is the cost scaling factor.
the plant is calculated as follows:
 ˇ
s
Operating costs are resulting from the MILP model, as well as utility CBM = FBM Cref (37)
sref
utilization and size;
The yearly total costs are calculated according to Eq. (35), where All economic assumptions considered in the present study are
Cop are operating costs of the plant expressed in US$/y, CGR are reported in Table 4.
grass-root costs accounting total investment costs for a new pro-
duction site excluding land and  represents the annualization 3.3. Environmental performances
investment factor.
The environmental performances are accounted by systemat-
Ctot = Cop +  · CGR (35) ically including a LCA model, which is computed right after the
economic evaluation, using the methodology presented by Gerber
Equipment investment costs are calculated considering the
et al. (2011).
generic power law reported in Eq. (36).
The LCA model invokes material flows, energy flows and equip-
  ment size that were previously computed. The LCI emissions and
0
CGR = (1 − c1 ) · CBM,i + c2 CBM,i (36)
i i extraction related to process equipment, input and output flows
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183
are calculated using the EcoInvent® database. Once the emission
and extractions associated to the LCA model are calculated several
impact categories can be evaluated as environmental performance
indicators of the process. It has to be highlighted that those are
strictly dependent on the process design, thus on the selection of
the independent variables of the design problem. The LCIA indi-
cator is calculated per LCA model unique Functional Unit (FU),
which is selected in this study as 1 MJ of feedstock entering the
hydrothermal gasification process. All the material/energy flows
and components considered in the LCA model are depicted in Fig. 1.
It must be highlighted that the impact of construction materials
as well as that of the process flows during the operation of the
system are accounted for. As the biomass is produced in the same
site as the conversion plant is located, that is not true for most of
the biomass sources, the impact of the feedstock logistics of a big
size plant is not an issue.
4. Optimization procedure
4.1. Applied methodology
Process design optimization is performed by applying an exist-
ing methodology proposed by Gassner and Maréchal (2009), in
which energy integration principles, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and
economic aspects are accounted as objectives. The related MINLP
model is solved in order to define the best set of optimal solutions
for the process design.
The mathematical formulation of the MINLP optimization prob-
lem is decomposed in two-steps: the evolutionary multi objective
optimization algorithm developed by Molyneaux et al. (2001) acts
as master optimization problem to optimize the system design
with respect to multiple objectives; the mixed integer linear pro-
gramming (MILP) model for the optimal selection of utilities is
considered as a slave optimization problem and allows minimizing
operating costs accounting for heat cascade constraints.
The so called black box model considered by the multi objective
optimization algorithm includes thermodynamic models of energy
conversion utilities and thermodynamic models of process units
where process heat transfer requirements are calculated.
The black box model includes the solution of the slave MILP
optimization problem, which gives as output the utility use and
utility size for which yearly operating costs are minimum and
respecting heat cascade constraint and Energy Integration princi-
ples. It is the methodology presented by Maréchal and Kalitventzeff
(1998). Using this approach the process requirements are com-
puted accounting for minimum approach temperatures Tmin for
each of the thermal streams, for both process and utility. The
involved decision variables of the MILP slave problem are: one inte-
ger variable for each of the possible energy conversion utilities and
one continuous variable related to each utility and indicating its
size.
The results of the MILP model (i.e. type and size of utilities)
are used for investment cost estimation, and for the calculation
of energy/exergy performance indicators as well as environmental
impacts. These values represent the black box model outputs and
some of them are considered as competing objective functions of
the master optimization problem.
Investment expenses are calculated by using cost correlations
available in literature (Turton, 2009; Ulrich and Vasudevan, 2003).
Energy and exergy efficiencies are also calculated by considering
the MILP model results and taking into account the overall plant
(process and optimal set of utilities).
The environmental impacts are accounted in the model with the
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) approach proposed by Gerber
et al. (2011), thus following the cradle-to-gate LCIA approach and
177
considering as a functional unit 1 MJ of dry biomass at the plant
inlet. Following the mentioned approach, the Ecoinvent® database
for Life Cycle Impacts (LCI) is linked with the physical model in order
to evaluate the environmental performance indicator. The impact
assessment method selected in this analysis is the one proposed by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in partic-
ular the Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100 years is chosen as
environmental performance indicator.
Finally the set of optimal process conceptual designs are cal-
culated with respect to competing objectives (thermodynamic,
economic and environmental) are evaluated based on the slave
optimization problem results. Nonlinearities occurring at the level
of thermodynamic modeling, specification equations of unit mod-
els, as well as equipment cost functions and environmental impact
functions of each plant unit are evaluated through the multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm. The use of such a black box
optimization tool allows accounting for multiple objectives and
generating optimal design configurations. Moreover, since the
Tmin of some component streams is set as decision variable, the
evolutionary algorithm allows overcoming the possible disconti-
nuities in the objective function that may appear when calculating
optimal utility integration.
In this paper multi-objective optimization is performed with
respect to three objectives, aiming at the equivalent SNG efficiency
maximization, the investment costs and the GWP100 minimi-
zation. It has to be highlighted that in the here applied two-step
approach, the minimization of investment costs is made with
respect to minimum operating costs, being the objective function
of the slave MILP problem the minimization of operational costs. A
graphical representation of the presented methodology is depicted
in Fig. 5.
4.2. Application to SNG conversion from microalgae
The trade-off between several competing objectives related
to the previously presented process performance is investigated
using multi-objective optimization. The evolutionary algorithm is
applied in order to optimize the values of the set of decision vari-
ables in the design problem.
Process design optimization is performed for a given amount
of microalgae that have to be fed continuously into the HTG pro-
cess, considering the single pond size as fixed parameter, together
with values assumed in the cultivation and dewatering processes
modeling phase. The number of ponds that are put into oper-
ation is considered variable during the operating time in order
to assure constant microalgae feedstock availability. The lack of
data concerning process performances and energy requirements
of the dewatering step has affected the decision of not accounting
potential improvements by optimizing the dewatering step pro-
cess. These limitations of the model will be improved in upcoming
analysis.
The multi objective optimization model accounts for design
variables, listed in Table 5. Concerning utility use and size, the
following approach is considered:
(a) The decision variables related to the use of pressure recovery
expanders, vapour or liquid driven, are set as integer variable
of the master optimization problem;
(b) The pressure level and superheating temperature of the steam
network header are set as decision variables of the master opti-
mization problem;
For every Evolutionary Algorithm objective function evaluation
thermodynamic models are solved, thermal and electricity process
streams are recovered in order to consider the energy integration
(“slave”) MILP model.
178 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183

Fig. 5. Design methodology: thermo-environomic optimization.

Table 5
Variables of the master optimization problem and related bounds.

Unit Parameter Ranges Units

Hydrothermal gasification: Maximum temperature [743, 853] K

salt separation unit TSSint [20, 40] K
TSSbottom [20, 40] K
TSStop [20, 40] K
Hydrothermal gasification Gasification pressure [220, 300] bar
pressure Gasification temperature [623, 673] K
Heat recovery steam cycle Pressure level [20, 70] bar
Super-heating DT [30, 80] K
Integer variables for utility Vapour high pressure power recovery [0, 1] –
activation Liquid high pressure power recovery [0, 1] –
Liquid low pressure power recovery [0, 1] –

Concerning integer and continuous variables involved in the while solving optimal design problems. The considered competing
utility integration problem, the following approach is considered: objectives are:

(a) The use and size of burners or steam injected gas turbine utili-
ties are variables of the slave optimization problem (MILP);
(b) The decision of installing a steam network (1 integer variable)
and the size of the network (a continuous variable) are set at the
level of the slave optimization (MILP) as proposed by Marechal
and Kalitventzeff (1997), in this context it has to be highlighted
that steam expansion or maximum size of steam network has
to be constrained to prevent burning of produced SNG for direct
electricity generation through the steam network model;
The MILP problem is solved considering minimization of
operating costs, thus calculating utility use and utility size. On
the upper computation level, the Multi Objective Optimization
algorithm is used; this type of optimization technique follows a
black-box approach allows handling multiple objective functions
(1) minimize investment costs: min(Cinv )
(2) maximize SNG production: min (−h0fuel,out · ṁfuel,out )
(3) minimize CO2 equivalent emissions: min(GWP100 )
The problem is constrained not only in terms of decision vari-
ables of the master optimization problem but also in terms of heat
cascade model constraints.
The Multi Objective Optimization (MOO) algorithm needs to
specify additionally to objective functions and decision variables,
the initial population size and the maximum number of evaluations
as stopping criteria. The initial population size was set at 300 indi-
viduals and the maximum number of evaluations was set at 3000
evaluations.
Convergence issues and impact of initialization points are not in
the scope of this paper. However, it has been checked that running
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183
Fig. 6. Pareto frontier and selected point for results analysis.
several times the problems leads to almost identical results, but
it has not been analyzed how initialization of the optimization
problem affects the Pareto front.
Concerning computation time, each evaluation takes, on aver-
age, from 1.5 to 5 CPU seconds, mainly depending on time requested
to the thermodynamic models to converge. The optimization prob-
lem solution is reached in a single machine after about 60 min. This
time could be highly reduced by using parallel computing.
5. Results
The solution of the optimization problem leads to the Pareto
frontier, as the set of optimal design configuration correspond-
ing to a set of optimal values of the decision variables (Fig. 6).
Considering a biomass input of 20 MW, the SNG production varies
between 10.3 and 12.3 MW whereas the total yearly cost varies
between 10 and 16 $/GJBM . The trend shows that an increase in the
efficiency reduces the environmental impact due to the fact that
the production of renewable SNG is considered, which replaces
the same amount of fossil Natural Gas from the grid. The environ-
mental impact is negative for all the optimum values presented in
the Pareto curve and decreases even more with the increase of the
efficiency, although requiring more investment.
It is important to mention that the economic results presented
depend on previously assumed parameters (Table 4). With respect
to these parameters, the operating costs mainly depend on the
operating hours and the electricity price, being the electricity bal-
ance negative for all the presented solutions.
The impact on the total yearly costs of an optimal solution with
respect to variations of the electricity price and natural gas sell-
ing price is difficult to estimate. Fuel prices and electricity prices
are affecting utility prices, thus changing these values could lead
to activation of integer variables associated to the use of an util-
ity. As a consequence of the MILP result, the targeting and sizing
of the considered utilities could lead to much different economic
performances. This is a limitation of the methodology here applied;
an alternative would be the use of a mathematical formulation as
a MINLP problem where uncertainty of prices is accounted.
With respect to the results of this paper, it is possible to calcu-
late a posteriori the impact of different fuel prices on the optimal
solutions, but it is clear that there is no guarantee that the new esti-
mations will be Pareto optimal. In order to check the profitability
of the system and the feasibility of the proposed system the brake
even price of converted SNG is calculated. Considering the Pareto
frontier solutions, corresponding brake-even prices of SNG vary
between 20 and 30 $/GJ. This is in line with what is presented in a
recent publication (Brandenberger et al., 2013) for a very optimistic
scenario and without applying optimization techniques.
179
In order to analyze the effect of the decision variables on the
optimized design problem and to highlight process requirements
and energy integration concepts, three design points are selected
in different regions of the Pareto frontier, as depicted in Fig. 6. The
list of decision variable values corresponding to the three selected
Pareto points is reported in Table 6.
The list of the most important dependent variables that were
calculated for the open pond cultivation model is reported in
Table 7. These values are the same for each of the considered Pareto
optimal points, since gasification plant input is fixed and decision
variables of the optimization problem were not affecting cultiva-
tion model, nor the dewatering step performances.
Finally, values of the most relevant dependent variables of the
considered problem are reported in Table 8 for the three Pareto
optimal points previously highlighted.
Analyzing the cultivation model results it can be seen that 240 ha
of open pond have to be installed in order to guarantee 20 MW
dry LHV algae input to the gasification plant. Considering CO2 and
water requirements of the cultivation phase, it can be concluded
that the gasification/gas cleaning process and the set of considered
utilities allows recycling more than 30% of the gross carbon dioxide
requirements of the pond (Table 7). Concerning the water balance,
recovery from the gas cleaning section is about 5% of the total water
demand of the cultivation step. Recycling of nutrients, in the form
of sulfur and nitrogen rich compounds is also possible, but it is not
deeply analyzed in the present study. Electricity consumption of the
cultivation and dewatering phase is measured to be about 6% of the
energy in the biomass. Comparing this result with results presented
by Williams and Laurens (2010), this is an optimistic value. The
reason is mainly due to the low electricity requirement assumed in
this study, which is referred to the best available technology on the
market.
The production cost of the microalgae feedstock, considering
15% of solid content, is of 30 c$/kgmicroalgae , which is 10 c$ lower
than the reference in literature (Williams and Laurens, 2010), being
the fertilizers contribution not accounted for.
Considering the performance indicators reported in Table 8,
and taking into account electricity contributions, it is clear how
the negative overall electricity consumption of the conversion
plant is mainly due to the electricity requirements of the cultiva-
tion step. Despite the negative electricity balance, energy/exergy
efficiencies and sun to fuel energy/exergy efficiencies are much
higher than those of ligno-cellulosic biomass to biofuel conver-
sion systems. This is not only due to the high photo conversion
efficiency of microalgae but also to the high carbon conversion
ratio (around 75%) of the investigated biomass to SNG pro-
cess.
Considering values of decision variables for the selected three
points (Table 6) and corresponding values of the performance
parameters, it can be observed how high gasification pressure and
high salt separation maximum temperature lead to high efficien-
cies and lower emissions. This is due to a higher internal recovery
which is coming from the salt slurry and the gas cooling between
the salt separator outlet and the gasification reactor inlet. This
aspect can be also seen by analyzing the energy and exergy Grand
Composite Curves reported in Fig. 7. Changes in Pinch Point and
activation of new Pinch Points due to optimal utility integration
allow reducing process thermal energy requirements. It can also
be seen how high maximum temperature in salt separation unit
is activating self-sufficient pockets in the Grand Composite Curve;
this is consequently reducing the amount of heat required above
the Pinch Point. Analyzing the exergy Grand Composite Curves of
the recomputed points, it can be seen that high temperature pro-
cess heat requirements are provided by burning part of the crude
product. The related exergy destruction at high temperature is, as
depicted in Fig. 7, quite significant. The heat excess below 600 K is
180 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183

Table 6
Decision variables corresponding to the three selected optimal Pareto points.

Unit Decision variable Pareto point Unit Integer

A B C

Salt separator Tmax , salts sep 744.21 787.18 851.42 [K] No

TSSint 28.45 25.77 20.02 [K] No
TSSbottom 20.00 29.83 30.72 [K] No
TSStop 35.02 37.31 35.03 [K] No
Hydrothermal gasification HTG pressure 232.50 273.04 299.16 [bar] No
Gasification reaction inlet temperature 623.29 623.15 623.15 [K] No
Steam cycle utility Steam pressure 66.96 61.84 60.29 [bar] No
T superheating 58.04 66.01 61.43 [K] No
Pressure recovery Vapour high pressure recovery 1 1 0 – Yes
expanders Liquid high pressure recovery 1 1 1 – Yes
Liquid low pressure recovery 1 1 1 – Yes

Table 7
Process requirements and costs of the open pond cultivation plant.

Mass balances Value Unit

Carbon dioxide in Gross CO2 requirement 0.0108 kg s−1 ha−1

cultivation Recycled CO2 0.0039 kg s−1 ha−1
Net CO2 requirement 0.0070 kg s−1 ha−1
Water in cultivation Total water requirement 0.3614 kg s−1 ha−1
Water recycled from the HTG plant 0.0178 kg s−1 ha−1
Net water requirement 0.3436 kg s−1 ha−1
Electricity
Cultivation Paddle wheel (recirculation) 2.7 kW ha−1
Pumps 0.5 kW ha−1
CO2 and CG injection 1.5 kW ha−1
Total electricity consumption 4.7 kW ha−1
Dewatering Centrifuge electrical energy 1.12 kWh m−3
Costs
Cultivation Specific total cost 0.25 $ kg−1 dry BM
Dewatering Specific total cost 0.05 $ kg−1 dry BM

Table 8
Process performances related to the selected Pareto points.

Contributions A B C Unit

Consumption Input biomass energy 20,000 20,000 20,000 kW

Electricity in cultivation phase 1171 1173 1176 kW
Electricity in dewatering step 119 119 119 kW
Electricity in gasification step 169 198 217 kW
Electricity in SNG purification 686 676 672 kW
Crude SNG combustion 3465 2586 1822 kW
Production Energy in produced SNG 10,659 11,570 12,334 kW
Electricity from liquid expanders 482 477 475 kW
Electricity from vapour expanders 115 116 0 kW
Electricity from STI-POX-GT 799 693 606 kW
Electricity from Steam Network 463 362 298 kW
Net electricity −286 −516 −800 kW
Efficiencies tot 52.54 56.39 59.29 %
ε 49.00 52.64 55.42 %
eq 51.94 55.25 57.49 %
sun to fuel 2.21 2.40 2.56 %
εsun to fuel 2.05 2.24 2.42 %

Fig. 7. Energy and exergy grand composite curves of the analyzed Pareto points.
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183 181

valorized by the steam network technology, leading to minimum

exergy destruction in the lower part of the heat cascade.
Gasification temperature is at its lower bound for all the ana-
lyzed Pareto points (see Table 6); this allows maximizing the energy
recovery between the salt separator output and gasification reactor
input.
By considering energy balances of the considered points and
their relation with decision variables of the optimization prob-
lem, it can be observed that the pressure level of the gasification
step is acting as a key decision variable, since it is largely affecting
power generation from vapour/liquid expanders that are placed in
the separation phase. This affects the net electricity balance of the
plant, and as a consequence the impact contribution and profitabil-
ity of the plant. As minor aspect, high pressure levels slightly reduce
the thermal energy demand of the process, because of the slightly
increase effect in Pinch Point location at high temperature.
Fig. 8. Distribution of plant investment costs for the considered Pareto points.
Concerning utility selection and corresponding optimal values
of considered integer variables, it is shown that is more profitable
to buy green electricity at 270 $/MWh than to invest in high pres- natural gas and to the emissions related to its extraction. The
sure gas expanders, while high pressure liquid expanders and post negative electricity balance is affecting the emissions in a negative
oxidation gas turbines are economically viable technologies. way (positive CO2 -equivalent emission), but globally the increase
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 8, the main investment cost con- in SNG production is widely compensating this aspect. The two
tributions are related to cultivation, gasification and utilities units. major impacts related to compounds production, operation and
The gas cleaning is also contributing for about 15% of the total end of life represent a minor contribution when accounting the
investment, while the heat exchanger network cost estimation con- impact at 100 years.
sidered and dewatering process represent a minor contribution of As last remark, the authors aim at showing the impact of the
plant investment expenses. single pond size (a value Asinglepond = 2 ha was considered in the
Finally, considering impact contributions for each of the recom- results presented up to this point) on the presented results, since
puted points as reported in Fig. 9, it can be seen that, as previously this parameter widely affects not only the investment cost but also
mentioned, the negative impact is due to the substitution of fossil other aspects such as the electricity requirements to assure a proper

Fig. 9. LCIA impact contributions for the selected Pareto points.

182 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183
Fig. 10. Pareto frontiers of the optimization problem for 2 ha and 4 ha single pond
size.
recirculation and mixing inside the culture. An additional optimiza-
tion problem was performed by changing only the value of the
independent variable related to the single pond module size, dou-
bling its value to 4 ha. The Pareto front of the considered problem
with 2 ha and 4 ha as single pond size are reported for compari-
son in Fig. 10. As expected, an increase of single pond size leads
to a reduction of yearly total cost. Despite the expectations, the
energy consumption and electricity requirements of the pond are
not highly affecting emissions and overall efficiency of the com-
plete conversion chain (i.e. from solar radiation to combined SNG
and electricity production).
6. Conclusions
The conceptual design of microalgae cultivation and hydro-
thermal gasification has been investigated by using thermo-
economic and environmental models. The use of optimization
techniques in designing microalgae to SNG conversion process
accounting for supercritical gasification was never investigated in
literature considering the complete conversion path. It has been
confirmed how microalgae represent a feedstock with fast growth
rate and high productivity, with no constraints regarding the use
of non-arable lands.
A detailed model for the microalgae cultivation system in open
ponds was developed in order to predict the biomass productivity
based on the available solar radiation data, accounting for recycling
of nutrients, CO2 and power requirements.
The optimization strategy has allowed optimizing the design of
the complete conversion path by considering multiple objectives.
Thus a set of process design specifications have been retrieved by
solving a MINLP model, accounting for energy integration princi-
ples, economic, environmental and thermodynamic aspects. The
environmental impact has also been taken into account in the
design phase, showing that the possibility of fossil NG substitution
makes this conversion process very attractive from the environ-
mental point of view, not just for the GWP reduction but also due
to the fact that the system permits to recycle water, nutrients and
CO2 recovery.
The set of optimal configurations has been presented in terms of
Pareto frontier, highlighting key design specifications; it has been
shown that the hydrothermal gasification pressure and the maxi-
mum temperature to be reached in the salt separation unit are key
design variables. Effects of their selection on performance indica-
tors have been detailed.
Analysis of performance indicators for three selected config-
uration has shown that achieved sun-to-fuel efficiencies seem
to be promising if compared to traditional biomass to fuel
thermochemical conversion processes. Assumptions related to eco-
nomic models have led to a final SNG production cost between 20
and 30 $/GJSNG , which is in line with actual price of fossil natural gas.
Additional effort has to be done in order to evaluate economic per-
formance indicators by accounting the influence of the economic
assumptions on the economic objective function.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Swiss Competence Centre
of Energy & Mobility (CCEM) and Airlight Energy Holding SA, Ticino
(CH) for funding their research in the context of the Solar-HTG
CCEM Project.
References
Belsim SA, Vali V, www.belsim.com; 2014.
Brandenberger M, Matzenberger J, Vogel F, Ludwig C. Producing synthetic natu-
ral gas from microalgae via supercritical water gasification: a techno-economic
sensitivity analysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;51:26–34.
Brennan L, Owende P. Biofuels from microalgae – a review of technologies for pro-
duction, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2010;14(2):557–77.
Buhr H, Miller SB. A dynamic model of the high-rate algal-bacterial wastewater
treatment pond. Water Res 1983;17:29–37.
Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(1):50–6.
Clarens AF, Resurreccion EP, White MA, Colosi LM. Environmental life cycle
comparison of algae to other bioenergy feedstocks. Environ Sci Technol
2010;44(5):1813–9.
Evodos BV. Totally dewatering algae. Alive; 2012.
Gassner M, Maréchal F. Methodology for the optimal thermo-economic, multi-
objective design of thermochemical fuel production from biomass. Comput
Chem Eng 2009;33(3):769–81.
Gassner M, Vogel F, Heyen G, Maréchal F. Optimal process design for the poly-
generation of SNG, power and heat by hydrothermal gasification of waste
biomass: thermo-economic process modelling and integration. Energy Environ
Sci 2011;4(5):1726.
Gerber L, Gassner M, Maréchal F. Systematic integration of LCA in process systems
design: application to combined fuel and electricity production from lignocel-
lulosic biomass. Comput Chem Eng 2011;35(7):1265–80.
Haiduc AG, Brandenberger M, Suquet S, Vogel F, Bernier-Latmani R, Ludwig C.
SunCHem: an integrated process for the hydrothermal production of methane
from microalgae and CO2 mitigation. J Appl Phycol 2009;21(5):529–41.
Harun R, Davidson M, Doyle M, Gopiraj R, Danquah M, Forde G. Technoeconomic
analysis of an integrated microalgae photobioreactor, biodiesel and biogas pro-
duction facility. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(January (1)):741–7.
Jeter J. Maximum conversion efficiency for the utilization of direct solar radiation.
Sol Energy 1981;26:231–6.
Jupsin H, Praet E, Vasel JL. Dynamic mathematical model of high rate algal ponds
(HRAP). Water Sci Technol: J Int Assoc Water Pollut Res 2003;48(2):197–204.
Ketheesan B, Nirmalakhandan N. Feasibility of microalgal cultivation in a pilot-scale
airlift-driven raceway reactor. Bioresour Technol 2012;108:196–202.
Leusbrock I, Metz SJ, Rexwinkel G, Versteeg GF. Quantitative approaches for the
description of solubilities of inorganic compounds in near-critical and super-
critical water. J Supercrit Fluids 2008;47(2):117–27.
Luterbacher J, Fröling M, Vogel F, Maréchal, Tester JW. Hydrothermal gasification of
waste biomass. Environ Sci Technol 2008;43:1578–83.
Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B. Identify the optimal pressure levels in steam networks
using integrated combined and heat and power method. Chem Eng Sci
1997;52(17):2977–89.
Maréchal F, Kalitventzeff B. Process integration: selection of the optimal utility sys-
tem. Comput Chem Eng 1998;22:149e56.
Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B. Targeting the optimal integration of steam
networks: mathematical tools and methodology. Comput Chem Eng Suppl
1999;23:S133–6.
Molyneaux A, Favrat D, Leyland GB. A new clustering evolutionary multi-objective
optimisation technique. In: Third International Symposium on Adaptative Sys-
tems, Institute of Cybernetics, Mathematics and Physics; 2001. p. 41–7.
Norsker N-H, Barbosa MJ, Vermuë MH, Wijiffels RH. Microalgal production – a close
look at the economics. Biotechnol Adv 2011;29(1):24–7.
Putt R, Chinnasamy S, Das KC. An efficient system for carbonation of high-
rate algae pond water to enhance CO2 mass transfer. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(3):3240–5.
Richardson JW, Johnson MD, Outlaw JL. Economic comparison of open pond race-
ways to photo bio-reactors for profitable production of algae for transportation
fuels in the Southwest. Algal Res 2012;1(1):93–100.
Schubert M, Aubert J, Muüller JB, Vogel F. Continuous salt precipitation and separa-
tion from supercritical water. Part 3: interesting effects in processing type 2 salt
mixtures. J Supercrit Fluids 2012;61(1):44–54.
 A. Mian et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 76 (2015) 170–183
Schubert M, Regler JW, Vogel F. Continuous salt precipitation and separation from
supercritical water. Part 1: type 1 salts. J Supercrit Fluids 2010a;52(1):99–112.
Schubert M, Regler JW, Vogel F. Continuous salt precipitation and separation from
supercritical water. Part 2: type 2 salts and mixtures of two salts. J Supercrit
Fluids 2010b;52(1):113–24.
Sialve B, Bernet N, Bernard O. Anaerobic digestion of microalgae as a necessary step
to make microalgal biodiesel sustainable. Biotechnol Adv 2009;27(4):409–16.
Sierra E, Acién FG, Fernandez JM, Garcia JL, Gonzalez C, Molina E. Characterization
of a flat plate photobioreactor for the production of microalgae. Chem Eng J
2008;138(1–3):136–47.
Stucki S, Vogel F, Ludwig C, Haiduc AG, Brandenberger M. Catalytic gasification of
algae in supercritical water for biofuel production and carbon capture. Energy
Environ Sci 2009;2(5):535–41.
183
Turton R. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. 3rd ed Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.
Ulrich G, Vasudevan P. A guide to chemical engineering process design and eco-
nomics a practical guide. 2nd ed Boca Raton, FL: CRC; 2003.
Weissman JC, Goebel RP. Design and analysis of microalgal open pond systems for
the purpose of producing fuels. Report of U.S. Department of Energy; 1987. p.
214.
Williams PJB, Laurens LML. Microalgae as biodiesel and biomass feedstocks: review
and analysis of the biochemistry, energetics and economics. Energy Environ Sci
2010;3(5):554–90.
Yang A. Modeling and evaluation of CO2 supply and utilization in algal ponds. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2011;50:11181–92.