The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The production of synthetic natural gas (SNG): A comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy balance and overall efficiency
Abstract
Abstract The production of Synthetic Natural Gas from biomass (Bio-SNG) by gasification and upgrading of the gas is an attractive option to reduce CO 2 emissions and replace declining fossil natural gas reserves. Production of energy from biomass is approximately CO 2 neutral. Production of Bio-SNG can even be CO 2 negative, since in the final upgrading step, part of the biomass carbon is removed as CO 2 , which can be stored. The use of biomass for CO 2 reduction will increase the biomass demand and therefore will increase the price of biomass. Consequently, a high overall efficiency is a prerequisite for any biomass conversion process. Various biomass gasification technologies are suitable to produce SNG. The present article contains an analysis of the Bio-SNG process efficiency that can be obtained using three different gasification technologies and associated gas cleaning and methanation equipment. These technologies are: 1) Entrained Flow, 2) Circulating Fluidized Bed and 3) Allothermal or Indirect gasification. The aim of this work is to identify the gasification route with the highest process efficiency from biomass to SNG and to quantify the differences in overall efficiency. Aspen Plus ® was used as modeling tool. The heat and mass balances are based on experimental data from literature and our own experience. Overall efficiency to SNG is highest for Allothermal gasification. The net overall efficiencies on LHV basis, including electricity consumption and pre-treatment but excluding transport of biomass are 54% for Entrained Flow, 58% for CFB and 67% for Allothermal gasification. Because of the significantly higher efficiency to SNG for the route via Allothermal gasification, ECN is working on the further development of Allothermal gasification. ECN has built and tested a 30 kW th lab scale gasifier connected to a gas cleaning test rig and methanation unit and presently is building a 0.8 MWth pilot plant, called Milena, which will be connected to the existing pilot scale gas cleaning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An overview of advances in biomass gasification
Sikarwar, V. S., Zhao, M., Clough, P., Yao, J., Zhong, X., Memon, M. Z., Shah, N., Anthony, E. J., & Fennell, P. S. (2016) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c6ee00935b · Cited by 1,258
Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling
Nemet, G. F., Callaghan, M. W., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Hartmann, J., Hilaire, J., Lamb, W. F., Minx, J. C., Rogers, S., & Smith, P. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4 · Cited by 343
Municipal waste leachate conversion via catalytic supercritical water gasification process
Molino, A., Migliori, M., Blasi, A., Davoli, M., Marino, T., Chianese, S., Catizzone, E., & Giordano, G. (2017) · Fuel · doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2017.05.091 · Cited by 52
Recent advances in fluidized bed technology in biomass processes
Fouilland, T., Grace, J. R., & Ellis, N. (2010) · Biofuels · doi:10.4155/bfs.10.20 · Cited by 43
Technoeconomic analysis of a waste tire to liquefied synthetic natural gas (SNG) energy system
Subramanian, A. S. R., Gundersen, T., & Adams, T. A. (2020) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.117830 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Meijden, C. M., Veringa, H. J., & Rabou, L. P. L. M.
- Venue
- Biomass and Bioenergy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-311
- ISSN
- 0961-9534 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2094395879
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The production of synthetic natural gas (SNG): A comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy balance and overall efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.001
- The paper
- van der Meijden, C. M., Veringa, H. J., & Rabou, L. P. L. M. (2010). The production of synthetic natural gas (SNG): A comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy balance and overall efficiency. Biomass and Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.