Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production from Biomass–Plastic Co-Gasification with Carbon Capture and Storage
バイオマス・プラスチック共ガス化による水素製造の技術経済およびライフサイクル評価 - 炭素回収・貯留を伴う場合と伴わない場合 (AI 翻訳)
Mahmoud Karimi, Halis Simsek
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
バイオマスとプラスチック廃棄物の共ガス化による水素製造を、CCSの有無で比較。共ガス化によりLCOHは2.18 USD/kgと低減し、CCS導入で30-36%上昇するが、70 USD/tCO2のクレジットで1.74-1.81 USD/kgと競争力を持つ。LCAではCCSによりGWPが正味マイナスになるが、CEDは15%増加。政策支援が鍵と結論。
English
This study evaluates techno-economic and environmental performance of hydrogen production via co-gasification of biomass and plastic waste with and without CCS. Co-gasification reduces LCOH to 2.18 USD/kg (7% below biomass-only), while CCS increases cost by 30-36% but becomes competitive at 1.74-1.81 USD/kg with $70/tCO2 credits. LCA shows net-negative GWP with CCS but 15% higher CED. Policy incentives are critical for deployment.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本の水素基本戦略や廃プラスチック資源化の文脈で、共ガス化+CCSは有望な低炭素水素経路となりうる。本論文は技術経済性と環境影響を定量化し、政策インセンティブの設計に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a detailed techno-economic and life-cycle assessment for a promising low-carbon hydrogen pathway combining waste valorization and CCS, offering insights for global hydrogen strategies and carbon credit mechanisms.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive modeling framework for co-gasification with CCS, useful for process optimization and LCA methodology.
🏢実務担当者:Demonstrates economic viability of co-gasification with CCS under carbon credit scenarios, informing investment decisions in hydrogen plants.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the critical role of carbon pricing (e.g., $70/tCO2) to make CCS-equipped hydrogen competitive, supporting policy design for clean hydrogen incentives.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study evaluates the techno-economic and environmental feasibility of hydrogen (H2) production via co-gasification of woody biomass and polyethylene (PE) plastic waste, with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS), using an integrated modeling framework. Four scenarios were analyzed: (1) biomass gasification without CCS, (2) biomass with CCS, (3) co-gasification (90:10 biomass:PE) without CCS, and (4) co-gasification with CCS. Process simulations were conducted in Aspen Plus V12.1, techno-economic analysis (TEA) via NREL’s H2A model, and cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) in OpenLCA with TRACI 2.1 and the Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) methods. The plant processes 1500 dry ton/day feedstock, yielding ~136–140 tons/day pure H2. TEA results show co-gasification without CCS achieves the lowest levelized cost of H2 (LCOH) at 2.18 USD/kg, 7% below biomass-only (2.34 USD/kg), due to reduced feedstock demand and improved efficiency. CCS increases LCOH by 30–36% (2.98–3.18 USD/kg), but 70 USD/t CO2 credits reduce it to 1.74–1.81 USD/kg, competitive with gray H2. Sensitivity and Monte Carlo analyses highlight capacity factor and feedstock as key drivers, with co-gasification narrowing uncertainties. LCA reveals co-gasification lowers most impacts by 5–10%, while CCS enables net-negative GWP (−12.3 to −14.7 kg CO2 eq/kg H2) but raises CED by 15%. Scenario 4 balances economic viability and climate mitigation, supporting circular economy principles through waste valorization. Findings affirm co-gasification with CCS as a promising pathway for low-carbon H2, with policy incentives critical for deployment. Future optimizations, like higher PE ratios, could further reduce costs below 2 USD/kg, advancing net-zero transitions.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/en19040929first seen 2026-05-15 18:00:16
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。