Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of biomass gasification modelling

Open access
Safarian, Sahar, Unnþórsson, Rúnar, Richter, Christiaan·2019·Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Abstract

Abstract Currently around 10% of all energy generated worldwide comes from biomass. Most of this 10% is biofuel energy from the fermentation of corn and sugarcane. Fermentation of corn competes with the global food supply, and fermentation of sugarcane drives deforestation. Therefore, the renewable and sustainable growth of these two bio-based energy sources may not be desirable even if it is economically feasible. Biomass gasification by contrast is significantly more flexible in terms of the bio-feedstock or waste that can be processed to either produce biofuels or to co-generate electricity and heat on demand. Fluidized bed and entrained flow gasifiers already achieve promising economy-of-scale for fuel production whilst downdraft gasifiers are well-suited for small-scale heat and power co-generation. This superior flexibility of gasification both in terms of the feedstock type and also the energy generation or fuel production options, is what drives expanding research and implementation opportunities for biomass gasification. Research progress is accelerated by modelling work. This review is the first review in the biomass gasification modelling field to collect and analyze statistics on the growing number of gasification modelling studies and approaches used. The frequency of the various modelling choices made, and the trends this data reveals, is reported. For new researchers this review provides a succinct guide to the modelling choices that needs to made early on in a modelling study or project. A detailed methodology characterization is introduced that includes consequential modelling choices not explicitly addressed by prior reviews. To seasoned researchers this study provides the first statistical (as opposed to ad hoc or anecdotal) picture of what their fellow researchers are doing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.003

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 82 references

Cited by

See all 404

Metadata

Authors
Safarian, S., Unnþórsson, R., & Richter, C.
Venue
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
110
Pages
378-391
ISSN
1364-0321 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2945999410
Cited by
404
References
82
FWCI
13.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A review of biomass gasification modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.003
The paper
Safarian, S., Unnþórsson, R., & Richter, C. (2019). A review of biomass gasification modelling. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.003

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.