CHEN 4015: Chemical Engineering Design ProjectSemester 2, 2017

MEMO 1Company:

“Catalytic Co-gasification of Biomass and Plastic Wastes mixtures with in-situ CO2 capture for enriched Hydrogen

Production”

Client: Dr. Bridgid Chin Lai FuiDate Submitted: 17th August 2017

DECLARATIONWe declare that we have cooperatively conducted and completed the experimental work titled as

above, and the results presented in this report are from our own experiment.

STUDENT ID MIRI ID NAME SIGNATURE

17997380 7E4B3407 PHUAN SOON LEE

18051258 7E4B3523 CHRISTINE ANN OBEK

18098459 7E4B3677 JASON TIONG SIE YEEN

18072385 7E3B2452 FARAH AMELIA AMEERUL AFIQ

17687102 7E4B3700 NEOH YEN CHEE

DESIGN PROJECT MEMO 1

Date: 17th August 2017 To: Dr. Bridgid Chin Lai FuiFrom: Phuan Soon Lee, Christine Ann Obek, Neoh Yen Chee,

Farah Amelia Ameerul Afiq, Jason Tiong Sie YeenRe: Catalytic Co-gasification of Biomass and Plastic Wastes mixtures with in-situ CO2 capture for enriched

Hydrogen Production

1. Project Background and ObjectivesPalm oil is the most efficient vegetable oil crop in the world as it supplied 30% of the global vegetable oil while only requiring 5% of the total agricultural land. Moreover, the almost endless applications of palm oil has driven the industry to expand rapidly. This rapid expansion is expected to contribute over 130 million tonnes of biomass in Malaysia by the year 2030. This opens an opportunity to tap into the abundant supply of biomass to be used as a source of renewable energy. Malaysia is also plagued with a poor recycling system causing an accumulated 6 million tonnes of plastic waste left in landfills. Circulating fluidised co-gasification processes are capable of converting a mixture of biomass and plastics into syngas. However, our design would incorporate various purification methods which would enrich the hydrogen content of our final product to 99.9% purity. The expected production rate is at 10 million t/yr. The site location is in Samalaju, Sarawak with convenient accessibility to raw materials, utilities and transport.

2. Project ConstraintsIn terms of process technology, there were limitations in terms of process data and background for a membrane separation process that was necessary for further separation of CO2 gas downstream the gasifier in order to achieve the targeted purity. Besides, the main limitations of using biomass as a feedstock is the unpredictable supply. As a contingency plan, our site location is in the centre of Borneo which is the heart of Malaysian palm oil cultivation, representing over 50% of the country’s plantation.

3. Market SurveyA market survey was conducted to source for the best raw materials, catalyst and strategic customers. The survey lead to the use of palm oil biomass and polyethylene as the feedstock for our process while our main consumer markets are China and India which represented over 60% of global syngas demand. It is crucial to strategically place our plant for optimal customer delivery and feedstock availability. Therefore, the decision was to locate our plant within Sarawak, Malaysia as it contained over 57 and 6 million tonnes of biomass and plastic waste. The following section explains the decision in detail.

a) Syngas Consumption and DemandSyngas is typically used in power generation and downstream production of petrochemicals and biofuels (Ozturk et al. 2017). Within Malaysia, Syngas Sdn Bhd is the only known competitor using a fractional de-

polymerization process (a form of thermal gasification) to convert plastic into syngas. The company’s plant operates with a capacity of 10 t/day and a capital and operational expenditure of RM 12 million. However, our projected production rate of 30 303 t/day is significantly higher.

The demand for syngas is estimated to grow with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.2% citing the growing demand for industrial chemicals, fuels and electrical security. Figure 1 illustrates the consumption of syngas by countries in the year 2016. Canada, India and China combined are estimated to represent over 50% of global demand for syngas. Stratas Advisors, a global consulting and advisory firm projects China to dominate the global syngas market with a consumption of 57% by the year 2026. Figure 2 illustrates the global syngas capacity projection until the year 2026. A 2016 report shows the price of syngas to be $0.36/m3 (Peng Pei 2014).

b) Biomass AvailabilityThe top three largest agricultural biomass available in South East Asia were compared and found that the most abundant biomass was palm oil. Based on results from 2017, the production of palm oil biomass exceeded both paddy and sugarcane biomasses by 400 million tonnes. In Malaysia, specifically Sarawak, was determined to be the most strategical location for obtaining palm oil biomass. As of 2017, the region had a total palm oil biomass capacity of 57.7 million tonnes with a plastic waste capacity of 6 million tonnes. Although Indonesia is the leading palm oil producer, poor levels of governance, high levels of corruption and a weak civil society lead to Malaysia championing the selection. All statistical data is available in Table 1 to 3 of Appendix A. In 2016, 15 million tonnes of plastic were generated in Malaysia with 50% of which were polyethylene. Cost of palm oil biomass has remained unchanged as most plantations and mills charge only the cost of transporting the material, roughly $58/t. Plastics cost $0.09/t when purchased from a recycling centre.

4. Selection of Process TechnologyProcess Technology selection for the Co-gasification process with in-situ CO2 capture for enriched Hydrogen Production was conducted and categorised according to the type of gasifier, gasifying agent, as well as gasification catalyst (Appendix B). For each category, quantitative and qualitative comparisons were indirectly made on the basis of technical feasibility, energy efficiency, process safety, and also economic viability. A detailed comparison between commercially available

1

gasifiers; Fixed Bed, Fluidised Bed and Entrained Bed gasifiers are shown in Table 6. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each gasifier, the fluidised bed gasifier displayed best results in terms of syngas quantity (313.45 g of syngas/kg biomass) and quality, flexibility and tolerance in feedstock specifications. Besides, the technology was commercially available for large scale biomass gasification since the 1980’s. Fluidised beds can be narrowed down into circulating fluidised bed (CFB) and bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) gasifier. However, CFB is better in terms of lower tar content, scalability and carbon conversion as shown in Table 8. In addition, the high circulating velocity of a CFB, ranging between 3.5 to 5.5 m/s, improves overall gasification efficiency (Chutichai 2015). Table 7 compares the performance of Calcium Oxide (CaO) and Nickel as catalysts for the gasification processes. CaO is chosen over Ni as it operates both as a CO2 sorbent, achieving over 95% of CO2 capture and aid in increasing H2 production by approximately 33.3%. Besides, the choice of gasifying agent, too, influences the product gas composition. Table 8 compares the use of pure steam, atmospheric air, and Oxygen as gasifying agents. Albeit the high tar content in produced gas through steam-gasification, Gil et al has concluded that it is easier to remove these tar as oppose to those generated via air-gasification. Furthermore, the composition of H2 gas is highest for steam-gasification processes. In conclusion, steam-gasification in a circulating fluidised bed gasifier over a CaO catalyst will be implemented in this project.

5. Process DescriptionA mixture of empty fruit bunches, mesocarp fibre and palm kernel shells is used as feed together with polyethylene plastic waste. Feedstock are first pre-treated to produce a consistent particle size of less than 11 mm. The two gasifier involved in the process is a CFB gasifier (R – 101 A) and a fixed bed gasifier (R – 102 A). There are two sections in the gasifier which is the gasifier bed and the cyclone. The cyclone is necessary for separation of ash from product gas. The grinded feed particles are fed into the screw conveyer where it will be directed into the fluidized bed gasifier (R – 101 A) via stream 1. The gasifying agent used is steam which is generated from burning biomass as fuel in a boiler. The steam then passes a four-way valve (VLV – 101 A) and enters a CFB gasifier (R – 101 A) via stream 10. The gaseous product of the steam gasification in R – 101 A exits the gasifier through stream 2 while ash exits R – 101 A through stream 11. Stream 2 then enters the fixed bed reactor (R – 102 A) for tar cracking. As steam is also used in R – 102 A, it is connected from E – 101 A via stream 12. Valves, VLV – 102 A and VLV – 103 A are used to control the amount of steam entering the gasifiers, R – 101 A and R – 102 A. The gaseous product that exits R – 102 A enters the scrubber, V – 101 A by stream 3. Ash from the reaction in R – 102 A exits via stream 12 and enters a mixer, M – 101 A where it mixes with ash from stream 11. The ash then exits M – 101 A and passes through a cooler, E – 103 A where the temperature of

the ash solids is reduced from 780 °C to 50 °C before entering the collector, K – 101 from stream 14. Water from stream 15 is used as a coolant for E – 103 A and is recycled from E – 103 A into another cooler, E – 102 A to reduce the temperature of gas which enters the heat exchanger from stream 4 to 5. In the scrubber, V – 101 A, tar is removed from the impure syngas and the reaction requires water, which enters from stream 17. Tar and water is removed from the impure syngas in V – 101 A and exits via stream 18 into a membrane separator, R – 104 A where water is separated and residue tar is recycled back into R – 102 A via stream 19. The product of the tar removal reaction in V – 101 A then pass through a cooler, E – 103 A via stream 4 before entering the adiabatic reactor, R – 103 A. The syngas then enters an adiabatic reactor, R – 103 A from stream 5 to enrich the hydrogen content in the syngas from the water gas shift (WGS) reaction. Steam is required for the WGS reaction and it enters R – 103 A from stream 13. The enriched syngas enters another membrane separator, R – 105 A from stream 6 to remove carbon. The two outlets from the membrane separator, R – 105 A where enriched syngas and carbon is removed is stream 21 and stream 21 respectively. Figure 4 in Appendix D and Figure 5 in Appendix G respectively shows the BFD and PFD of the co-gasification process.

6. Geographical Site SelectionSamalaju has been selected as the construction site of our syngas plant in comparison to Pasir Gudang and Lahad Datu. Samalaju was chosen due to the abundance of raw materials, sufficient facilities along with cheap utilities. The 5.5 km dual-carriageway Section B1 Road and C1 Collector Road allows for easy access to raw materials. Among the three sites compared, Sarawak has the cheapest industrial electrical tariff ($ 0.06/kWh) as shown in Appendix F. In addition, Samalaju Port, located only 1 km away from the plant is able to accommodate 71.24 million tonnes of cargo. Appendix F presents a detailed comparison between all three site locations, whereas Figure 6 in Appendix H shows the exact location of the plant as viewed from Google Maps

7. Storage and Transportation RequirementsStorage of biomass should be within an enclosed storage yard with built-in ventilation systems. Prepare a dedicated storage room with concrete walls for catalyst storage. Palm oil biomass transportation should be using trucks with a nylon cover to avoid spillage. When possible, usage of barge would reduce cost.

2

APPENDIX A: MARKET SURVEYTable 1: Production of top three biomass in SEA

TYPES OF BIOMASS SUGARCANE PADDY PALM OILTotal Biomass Production (tonnes)(Lacrosse and Shakya 2004, Hambali and Rivai , Wei 2017)

34 000 000 38 000 000 387 000 000

Calorific Value (MJ/kg) (Anwar 2010, Wei 2017)

16.7 19.3 19.1

Energy Potential (x1011 MW) 5.68 7.33 73.92SCORE 1 2 3

Table 2: Statistics on Total Biomass Projects and Palm Oil Related Productions in Indonesia, Malaysia and ThailandYEAR

COUNTRY

TOTAL BIOMASS RELATED PROJECT

(Carlos and Khang 2008)

Score TOTAL OIL PRODUCTION (million tons)

BIOMASS PRODUCTION (million tons)

Score

No. of projects Power capacity (MW) 2017 2020(Khatun 2017)

2015(Hambali and

Rivai)

2017 2020 (Hambali and Rivai)

2030 (Hambali and Rivai)

Indonesia 4 23.7 2 42.0 49.5 288.5 336.0 349.6 418.0 3Malaysia 12 82.2 3 27.3 29.3 90 124.1 133.2 NA 2Thailand 1 0.90 1 3.00 3.00 8 12 12 NA 1

Table 3: Biomass capacity of top three states in Malaysia

STATE PLANTED AREA (ha)

EXPECTED BIOMASS (tons) SCORE

Johor 745 630 11 691 000 1Sabah 1 551 714 24 329 880 2

Sarawak 3 681 603 57 725 171 3Sourced: Malaysian Palm Oil Board of Statistics 2017

Table 4: Biomass and plastic compositionsPALM OIL WASTES EMPTY FRUIT BUNCH (EFB) MESOCARP FIBRE (MF) PALM KERNEL SHELL (PKS)

Elemental Content (Wu 2017)(Mass Fraction In % Dry Basis)

C: 44.09% N: 1.62%0 H: 6.180% O2: 48.11% S: ND

C: 45.19% N: 1.44%0 H: 6.62% O2: 46.75% S: ND

C: 47.64% N: 1.08%0 H: 6.57% O2: 44.71% S: ND

Syngas Composition CO: 16.6% CO2:19.24%H2: 5.6% CH4:4.3%

CO:25.3% CO2:8.2%H2: 9.6% CH4:1.2%

CO: 14.3% CO2:0%H2: 82.1% CH4:11.4%

Energy Potential (MJ/Kg) (Loh 2017) 18.88 19.06 20.09Physical Properties (Mun 2015) Moisture (wt %) Ash (wt %) Volatiles (wt %) Calorific Value (MJ/kg)

67.004.60087.0418.54

37.096.10084.9118.12

12.003.00083.4518.98

Chemical Properties (wt %) (Mun 2015) Lignin Holocellulose Hemicellulose α – cellulose

M 20M 80M 30M 45

~50~10~30~10

M 50M 45M 20M 25

Advantages (Umar, Jennings, and Urmee 2013) 68% of palm oil millers prefer to trade their waste in an open market.Limitations (Umar, Jennings, and Urmee 2013) Fuel security and price inflation remain the main barriers that hamper

interest in entering the biomass renewable energy business.References (Wu 2017)

(Loh 2017)(Mun 2015)

(Umar, Jennings, and Urmee 2013)(Nordin 2013)

(Wu 2017)(Loh 2017)(Mun 2015)

(Umar, Jennings, and Urmee 2013)

PLASTIC WASTE HDPE LDPE PPPercentage In Total Plastic Waste(Ecosystem, 2011)

24 24 13

Elemental Content (Aznar 2006) C: 84.6% N: 0.02%0 H: 14.6% O2: ND% S: 0%

C: 84.6% N: 0.02%0 H: 14.6% O2: ND% S: 0%

C: 67.7% N: 0.03%0 H: 11.7% O2: ND% S: 0%

Syngas Production (Wu, 2010) CO: 25% CO2:10%H2: 65% CH4: 3%

CO: 25% CO2:10%H2: 65% CH4: 3%

CO: 24% CO2:10%H2: 65% CH4: 3%

Table 5: By-product reutilizationBY-

PRODUCTS ASH TAR CHAR WASTE WATER

Reutilization Reused as substitute for cement fillers Reused as structural fills for

abandoned mines and road pavements Reused as adsorbents in wastewater

treatment and vegetable oils

Reused in Tar Steam Reforming to produce smaller gas products

Recycled into tar cracking processes to form reusable products

Recycled in biomass pyrolysis process

Reused as tailored adsorbents and carbon supported catalyst

Pre-treated and reused in utilities such as heaters and coolers

Figure 1: Bar Chart of Syngas Production/Consuming Countries (Stratas Advisors 2016) Figure 2: Global Syngas Capacity (Stratas Advisors 2016)

APPENDIX B: PROCESS TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND SELECTION FOR DESIGN CO-GASIFICATION PROCESS PLANTTable 6: Comparison of different types of gasifier available in process industries

CRITERIA/TYPE OF GASIFIER UPDRAFT FIXED BED GASIFIER DOWNDRAFT FIXED BED GASIFIER ENTRAINED BED GASIFIER (EB) FLUIDISED BED GASIFIER

WO

RK

ING

PR

INC

IPL

E O

F G

ASI

FIE

R

Flow direction of Feedstock and Gasifying agent

Counter–current gasifier:Feedstock enters through the top while gasifying agent (air/O2/steam) flows in from the bottom (Sansaniwal 2017)

Co–current gasifier:Feedstock and gasifying agent (air/O2/steam) is fed in simultaneously and in the same direction (top or side fed) (Sansaniwal 2017)

Co-current gasifier:Feedstock and gasifying agent (air/O2/steam) enters the gasifier in the same direction from the top at high velocities (Samiran 2016)

Co–current gasifier:Feedstock and gasifying agent (air/O2/steam) is fed in simultaneously and in the same direction (Samiran 2016)

Product Exit Route Product gas stream containing a majority of H2

and CO gases leaves via the top of the gasifier at a low temperature.

Dry Ash discharged at the bottom of the gasifier. (Samiran 2016)

Produced gas and dry ash leaves through the bottom of the reactor (Samiran 2016)

Product gas stream containing a majority of H2 and CO gases leaves via the top of the gasifier at a low temperature.

Slagging Ash is discharged at the bottom of the gasifier (Basu 2006)

Product gas stream and dry ash leaves via the top of the gasifier at a low temperature.

Dry Ash is then separated from syngas through a cyclone attached to the gasifier (Basu 2006, Samiran2016).

Operating conditions Pressure: 2.5 – 3.0 MPa Residence time: 15 – 30 min Temperature: 787 – 1093 0C (Samiran 2016)

Pressure: 2.5 – 3.0 MPa Residence time: 15 – 30 min Temperature: 787 – 1204 0C (Samiran 2016)

Pressure: 2.94 – 3.43 MPa Residence time: 1 – 5 s Temperature: 700 - 1500 0C (Samiran 2016)

Pressure: NIL Residence time < 10 s Temperature: 800- 1000 0C (Samiran 2016)

SCOREa 1 2 4 3

FEE

DST

OC

K

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

S

Solid Feed Size (mm) 2 – 50 mm (Samiran 2016) 10 – 300 mm (Samiran 2016) < 1.0 mm (Samiran 2016) < 10 mm (Samiran 2016)Feed moisture content (%) < 60 % (Samiran 2016) < 20 % (Samiran 2016) < 15 % < 55 % (Samiran 2016)SCORE 4 2 1 3Ash content in feed <25 wt% < 6 wt% NIL < 25 wt%Feedstock tolerance - Limited tolerance for fine particles, instead, has high tolerance for coarse particles.

- Minimal pre-treatment of biomass if either updraft/downdraft fixed bed gasifier are used(Rajeev Sukumaran 2015).

+c Excellent tolerant for fine feedstock particles but unsuitable for biomass. -c Pulverisation of particles has to be carried out for reactions to go to completion.

+ Good tolerant for fine particles and excellent for biomass gasification.+ Flexibility to changes in ash and moisture content

- Feedstock requirements are moderately strict - Stringent feedstock requirements especially in terms of size so as to not block the throat.

SCORE 2 1 3 4Steam Requirement High Low ModerateSCORE 1 1 3 2

SYN

GA

S Q

UA

LIT

Y

Tar Levels (g/Nm3) High: 30 – 150 g/N m3 (Basu 2010). Very low: 0.015 – 3.0 g/N m3 (Basu 2010). Low: < 1.0 g/N m3 (Samiran 2016) Medium: 4 – 20 g/N m3 (Samiran 2016)SCORE 1 4 3 2Carbon conversion (%) ~100 % (Samiran 2016) 93-96 % (Samiran 2016) 90 – 100 % (Samiran 2016) 70 – 90 % (Samiran 2016)SCORE 4 2 3 1Product Gas Temp (0C) 425 – 650 0C (Samiran 2016) 700 – 800 0C (Samiran 2016) > 1260 0C (Samiran 2016) 800 – 1000 0C (Samiran 2016)Power output of Gas (MW) < 20 MW (Samiran 2016) < 10 MW (Samiran 2016) > 100 MW(Samiran 2016) 10 – 100 MW (Samiran 2016)SCORE 2 1 4 3LHV of Gas (MJ/Nm3) 5 – 6 MJ/Nm3 4 – 5 MJ/Nm3 4 - 10 MJ/Nm3 3 - 40 MJ/Nm3

SCORE 2 1 3 4Production rate of syngas (g syngas/kg feedstock)

133.25 g/kg biomass (Nipattummakul 2011) (Steam gasification of palm oil waste)

160.921 g/kg biomass (Ahmad 2016)(Steam gasification of Palm oil wastes) NIL 313.45 g/kg biomass (Moghadam 2014)

(Steam gasification of Palm kernel shell + plastics) General Remarks - Gas produced during pyrolysis is not combusted

therefore resulting in high levels of tar produced. - Extensive gas cleaning is required if product gas is

to be used in engines.

+ A cyclone is not necessary as minerals/particulates generated remain with the char/ash.

+ Moreover, only a minimal clean-up is necessary as 99.9 % of the tar formed is consumed.

+ Syngas produced does not consist of tar and phenolic compounds due to high temperatures.

+ In addition, in-situ removal of sulphur occurs. (Samiran 2016)

- High particulate dust contents can be found in the syngas, hence the need for a cyclone. (Samiran 2016)

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

OF

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AN

D

OPE

RA

TIO

N F

AC

TO

RS

Technology Status + Proven, one of the oldest, simplest and most common type of gasifier (Basu 2010).

+ Proven and has a Simple and reliable design (Basu 2010).

+ Proven Technology (Samiran 2016) + Proven, commonly used, and most advanced method for thermos-chemical conversion of several solid fuels into syngas (Ruoppolo 2012).

Process Reliability and Application of Gasifiers

- Lower gasification efficiency when feedstock involves biomass or coal (Basu 2010). - Highly established, successful and widely applied in coal gasification processes (Basu 2010).

+ Utilised broadly in coal and biomass gasification (Li 2017).

SCORE 3 2 1 4Technical and Operational Problems

- Product gas is very dirty with High levels of Tar Production (Bridgwater 1995)

- Very stringent specifications on feedstock for gasifier (Bridgwater 1995)

- Product Gas Cooling due to high exit temperature of above 1260 0C (Basu 2006)

- Operations are more difficult as compared to fixed bed (Bridgwater 1995)

Turndown Ratio Good turndown: 5 – 10 (Quaak, Knoef and Stassen 1999)

Limited turndown: 3 – 4 (Quaak, Knoef and Stassen 1999)

Limited turn down (Bridgwater 1995) Limited Turn down: 3 (Quaak, Knoef and Stassen 1999)

Scalability - Suitable for small scale operations - Suitable for small scale biomass operations - Suitable for large scale coal gasification + Suitable for large scale biomass gasificationHeat/Thermal Energy and Gasification efficiencies

Excellent thermal efficiency: Internal heat exchange results in relatively low

product gas temperatures and higher gasification efficiencies (Quaak, Knoef and Stassen 1999).

Thermal efficiency is lower as compared to updraft gasifier due to insufficient internal heat exchange.

Cooling of high temperature product gas upon leaving gasifier is required.

Gasification efficiency: 85 – 90%

Poor thermal efficiency compared to fixed bed gasifiers due to high operating temperatures.

Thermal efficiency can be improved if energy is recovered from the high temperature operations. (Samiran 2016)

Very good thermal efficiency. Efficient heat and mass transfer results in Uniform temperature distribution as well as enhanced gas-solid mixing (Ahmad 2016, Li 2017, Chutichai 2015).

Air is blown and allowed to circulate around a bed of solid particles at a high velocity to ensure that the feed particles are

widely spread and moves freely throughout.SCORE 3 2 1 4

Biomass Handling Capacity 150 tons/day (low) (Gasifiers For Biomass 2017) 65 tons/day (very low) (Gasifiers For Biomass 2017)

High 1000 tons/day (very high)(Gasifiers For Biomass 2017)

SCORE 2 1 3 4Disadvantages - Suitable only for low calorific value gas production

in gas turbines.- Limited to low biomass processing capacity hence

low productivity of syngas (Sansaniwal 2017)

- Higher ash content in syngas- Limited to low biomass processing capacity hence

low productivity

- Energy recovery due to high temperature operations is necessary for increased efficiency

- Gasification technology of biomass in an EB is still under development due to problematic solid biomass as feedstock. (Weiland 2015).

- Agglomeration may occur when using feedstocks with low ash melting temperatures, leading to defluidization of the gasifier.

- Corrosion and catalyst attrition issue as a result of high velocity (Samiran 2016)

PRO

CE

SS

SAFE

TY

Process Safety Issues Explosions Combustible gases may leak out through various routes such as the gasifier’s fuel feeding system as well as the ash discharge outlet, which may result in an explosion. There may be a certain amount of combustible gases remaining in the gasifier after it is being shut down. Hence, re-ignition of gasifier without firstly circulating fresh air in the gasifier may lead to an explosion (Quaak, Knoef and

Stassen 1999).Gas Treatment Condensation of tars on safety valves and fittings may affect the smooth operations of the process instrumentations. (Quaak, Knoef and Stassen 1999).

TOTAL SCOREb 8 5 5 12a Scoring system is implemented to factors that can be evaluated and analysed quantitatively. It lies in the range of 1-4. A score of 4 is given to the gasifier that performs best in the evaluated factor, and vice versa for a score of 1. The scoring system only applies to the criteria evaluated in the row directly above. In addition, the ranking system is carried out based on the restrictions that Palm oil wastes and Plastics are used as feedstock. b Total score is calculated by summing up individual scores of chosen factors evaluated for each gasifier. c A (+) bullet is used to indicate an advantage while a (-) bullet indicates a disadvantage are used to indicate General remarks that cannot be evaluated and ranked

Table 7: Comparison of Gasifying AgentsGASIFYING AGENT PURE STEAM ATMOPSHERIC AIR STEAM – OXYGEN MIXTURE

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E O

F G

ASI

FYIN

G A

GE

NT

Heating Value of Syngas (MJ/Nm3) LHV: 12.7 – 13.3 MJ/Nm3 (Gil 1999) LHV: 4.5 – 6.5 MJ/Nm3 (Gil 1999)Reduced due to the high percentage of Nitrogen gas in Air.

LHV: 12.5 – 13.0 MJ/Nm3 (Basu 2010)

SCORE 3 1 2Tar Content in Produced Gas (g/Nm3) 30 – 80 g/Nm3 of gas

Though tars generated via steam gasification is much greater as compared to air-gasification, it is easier to catalytically destroy these tar (Gil 1999)

2 -20 g/Nm3 of gas (Gil 1999) 4 -30 g/Nm3 of gas (Gil 1999)

SCORE 1 3 2Hydrogen Levels (vol % dry basis) 53 – 54 vol% of H2 (Gil 1999) 8 – 10 vol % of H2 (Gil 1999) 25 - 30 vol % of H2 (Udomsirichakorn and Salam 2014)SCORE 3 1 2Cost and Availability - External heating source required for steam generation increases

operational cost (Mohammed 2011)+ Inexpensive and widely available (Gil 1999) - Operating cost increases due to pre-separation of Oxygen from

atmospheric airTOTAL SCORE 7 5 6

Table 8: Analysis and Evaluation of 2 types of Fluidised Bed (BFB and CFB)CRITERIA/TYPE OF GASIFIER BUBBLING FLUIDISED BED (BFB) CIRCULATING FLUIDISED BED (CFB)

WO

RK

ING

PR

INC

IPL

E O

F G

ASI

FIE

R

Flow direction of Feedstock and Gasifying agent

Biomass feedstock is fed from the side while syngas and ash exists the top and bottom of the gasifier respectively

Inert Bed Material Inert bed material sits at the bottom of the gasifier Inert bed material is circulated with volatiles derived from feedstockTechnologies available Smaller companies have been involved with BFB technology

List of Developers: Carbona, TRI, EPI, ENERKEM, Iowa State University, Foster Wheeler Energy BFB Limited number of developers One dominant developer possessing a strong research base alongside big industrial players and few other

small developers. List of developers: Foster Wheeler Energy CFB (main), CHRISGAS Varnamo, VIT, CUTEC, Fraunhofer,

Uhde HTW, Halliburton KBR

Operating temperature < 9000C to avoid ash agglomeration (Basu 2006) < 9000C to avoid ash agglomeration (Basu 2006)

Residence time (s) 10 – 100 (Samiran 2016) 10 – 50 (Samiran 2016)

SCORE 1 2

FEE

DST

OC

K

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

S

Solid Feed Size (mm) < 5 mm (Samiran 2016) < 10 mm (Samiran 2016)Feed Moisture content (%) 10 – 55% (Samiran 2016) 10 – 55% (Samiran 2016)Fluidisation velocity (m/s) 0.5 – 1.0 m/s (Samiran 2016) 3.5 – 5.5 m/s (Samiran 2016)Flexibility of Feed Size - Not Flexible: Fines are not desirable (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011), + Flexible: Fine and coarse material can both acceptable Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011),

SCORE 1 2

SYN

GA

S LHV of Gas (MJ/Nm3) 3 – 8 MJ/Nm3 (Samiran 2016) 2 – 10 MJ/Nm3 (Samiran 2016)Tar Levels (g/Nm3) 3 - 40 g/Nm3 (Samiran 2016) 4 - 20 g/Nm3 (Samiran 2016)Turn Down ratio Very good (Basu 2006) Good (Basu 2006)

QUALI

Concentration of dust particles in product gas (g/Nm3) 4 g/Nm3 (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011) 20 g/Nm3 (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011)

SCORE 2 1

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

OF

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AN

D

OPE

RA

TIO

N F

AC

TO

RS

Process Control Complexity Less Complex More complexScalability Good potential for scaling up (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011) Very Good potential for scaling up (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011)Mixing of Fuel Good (Siedlecki, De Jong and Verkooijen 2011) Intense mixing and solid-gas contact (Samiran 2016)Heat/Thermal Energy and Gasification efficiencies

+ Temperature is uniformly distributed throughout the reactor. + High heat transfer rates is attainable between feedstock, gas, and inert bed material (Samiran 2016)

+ High rate of heat transfer accompanied by excellent mass transfer leads to better carbon conversion

Technology Status - Proven and well-established heat and power applications but not in the field of biomass gasification (Samiran 2016)

+ Proven commercial biomass gasification technology (1980 – now)

Downstream Gas Cleaning - Particle removal technology may be necessary downstream the gasifier, increasing capital cost + CFB is equipped with a cyclone that separates solid and gas, subsequently returning it to the bottom of the gasifier.

Carbon Conversion Issues - Carbon Conversion lower than that of CFB due to sticky behaviour of feedstock particles giving rise to less contact area amongst particles (Sansaniwal 2017).

+ Carbon Conversion is enhanced due to the recycling of entrained solids into the bed reactor (Sansaniwal 2017)

Technical and Operational Problems - Low solid conversion due to back mixing and particle entrainment (Samiran 2016) - Equipment erosion due to high velocity (Samiran 2016)SCORE 1 2TOTAL SCORE 5 7

Table 9: Comparison of Available CatalystCATALYST CALCIUM OXIDE (QUICK LIME) NICKEL METAL CATALYST

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E O

F C

AT

AL

YST

Capability for in-situ Carbon Dioxide capture

Able to capture 0.46 g of CO2 per g of adsorbent (Kenarsari and Zheng 2015) Able to achieve in-situ CO2 capture greater than 95% when used as bed material (Harrison 2009)

Does not function as a CO2 sorbent.

SCOREa 2 1Tar Reduction In bed catalyst:

Reduction ranges between 86.2 – 93.5 % (Moghadam 2017). Tar yield was reduced from 37.8 – 7.2 g/Nm3 (Li 2009)

In secondary downstream reactors 95% tar reduction achieved (Bridgwater 1995)

Results in nearly 100% conversion of tar and methane in secondary fixed bed reactors (Bridgwater 1995)

Mostly used in downstream reactors as catalyst for tar removal as well as enriching Hydrogen content (Shahbaz 2017)

Extensively used in biomass gasification due to its capability in tar destruction as well as improving product gas quality (Herman 2016)

SCORE 2 1Hydrogen Production Hydrogen yield, too, increases from 39.75 to 52.98 g H2/kg biomass, approximately 33.3 % (Li 2009). Yield of H2 gas increased between 6 – 11% (Shen and Yoshikawa 2013)SCORE 1 2

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AN

D O

PER

AT

ION

AL

PR

OB

LE

MS

OF

CA

TA

LY

ST

Operating temperature 850 – 900 0C (Basu 2010) 780 0C (Basu 2010)Cost (USD/tonne) 20 – 40 (Alibaba 2107) 2000 – 2500 (Alibaba 2017)SCORE 2 1Ease of Purchase + Naturally (dolomite/limestone) and commercially available in Malaysia for instance; Universal Lime Sdn

Bhd (Alipour Moghadam Esfahani 2017)+ Easily disposed

- Commercially available in Shanghai (Alibaba 2017). - Proper disposal has to be carried out as Nickel is harmful to the environment

SCORE 2 1Mechanical Strength of Catalyst - Fine particulates are generated due to catalyst attrition especially in fluidized gasifiers. [3]

- Soft and erodes quickly when used as bed in a highly turbulent fluidised gasifier (Abu El-Rub, Bramer and Brem 2004). However, dolomite can be mixed and fed with feedstock to replace eroded segment of dolomite bed (Olivares 1997)

- Not robust due to catalyst attrition especially in fluidized beds. Hence performs better in fixed bed gasifiers (Abu El-Rub, Bramer and Brem 2004

- Rapid deactivation due to formation of carbon on catalyst surface and sintering results in short catalyst lifespan of only about 7 hours. (Chan and Tanksale 2014)

- Regeneration of catalyst leads to volatilisation, sintering as well as phase transformations of the catalyst. Hence, catalyst has to be replaced constantly, making it uneconomical.

SCORE 2 1Drawbacks - Not economically viable as deactivation of CaO after CO2 capture requires frequent replenishment.

- A chemical looping gasification (CLG) is to be implemented to allow regeneration of CaO for continuous CO2 capture. (Udomsirichakorn and Salam 2014)

- Formation or coke during catalytic cracking- Rapid deactivation can be countered by addition of support materials such as dolomite or metal

promoters (Herman 2016)- Surface area is lost through crushing process (Abu El-Rub, Bramer and Brem 2004)

SCORE 2 1TOTAL SCOREb 13 8

a Scoring system is implemented to factors that can be evaluated and analysed quantitatively. It lies in the range of 1-2. A score of 2 is given to the gasifier that performs best in the evaluated factor, and vice versa for a score of 1. The scoring system only applies to the criteria evaluated in the row directly above. In addition, the ranking system is carried out based on the restrictions that Palm oil wastes and Plastics are used as feedstock. b Total score is calculated by summing up individual scores of chosen factors evaluated for each catalyst.

APPENDIX C: SITE LAYOUT

Figure 3: Site Layout of PlantAPPENDIX D: BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM (BFD)

Figure 4: BFD of Co-gasification ProcessAPPENDIX E: PROJECT SCHEDULE

Table 10: Gantt chartTask Description July August Sept October November

Week 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Memo 1 Market Research, Raw Material Study and Economic Feasibility

Process Technologies, Process Selection and Process EvaluationGeographical location of the plant site and draft of blueprint of the site locationDesign of the Block Flow Diagram and Process Flow DiagramMemo 1 Compilation

Memo 2 Construct the Process Flow Diagram and Start the Process Simulation Specify Major and Minor EquipmentModify the Process Flow Diagram for Optimization purposesMain functions and details of the Major EquipmentPreliminary pipe sizing and specifications connecting major equipmentDrawing the Plant Layout with dimensions showing equipment and major featuresEnvironmental Impact AssessmentProcess Hazards and Safety reviewsMemo 2 Compilation

Memo 3 Economic Assumptions that were made and the Methods that were used Capital and Operating Cost of the PlantAnalysis of Economic ScenarioProcess Control Philosophy of Plant – WidePlant Start – Up, Shutdown and Plant Commissioning Individual Major and Minor EquipmentMemo 3 Compilation

Presentation Preparation of Presentation Slides Memo 4 Evidence of Individual Sections outlined and presentedVolume 1 Volume 1 Compilation and FinalizedVolume 2 Volume 2 Compilation and FinalizedVolume 3 Volume 3 Compilation and FinalizedFinal Final Report Compilation

FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIERT = 780 °CP = 3 bar

Catalyst = Dolomite

WATER TANKT = 28 °CP = 1 bar

PUMPSTEAM

GENERATORT = 250 °CP = 3 bar

CONVEYER BELT70% EFB + PKS + MF

30 % Plasticṁ = 1.2 kg/hr

FIXED BED GASIFIERT = 780 °CP = 3 bar

Catalyst = Dolomite

ASH COLLECTOR

SCRUBBERT = 750 °CP = 3 bar

ADIABATIC REACTORT = 250 °CP = 3 bar

MEMBRANE FILTER

CARBON

SYNGAS

EFB + PKS + MF

COOLERT = 250 °CP = 3 barMIXER

T = 780 °CP = 3 bar

COOLERT = 50 °CP = 3 bar

MEMBRANE FILTER

WATER

APPENDIX F: GEOGRAPHICAL SITE LOCATION

Table 11: Comparison of Geographical Sites for Plant LocationFACTORS SAMALAJU, BINTULU PASIR GUDANG, JOHOR BAHRU LAHAD DATU, SABAH

LA

ND

DE

TA

ILS

Location relative to Pop. Centres 61 km northeast of Bintulu (Samalaju Properties 2017)

36 km away from Johor Bahru (Google Maps 2017)

6.8 km away from Lahad Datu (Google Maps 2017)

Coordinates (latitude/longitude) 3.572578, 113.334069 (Google Maps 2017)

1.447176, 103.927994 (Google Maps 2017)

5.020143, 118.378234 (Google Maps 2017)

Site Size 26.92 acres (Google Maps 2017) 26.92 acres (Google Maps 2017) 26.92 acres (Google Maps 2017)Soil Conditions Brown soil and fine sandy loam

(Beckett 1961) Soil profile consists of sand, silt, clay and gravel. Soil on steep lands consists of volcanic ash and conglomerate

(Soils of Sabah 2017).Number of Nearby Palm Oil Mills 42 nearby palm oil mills 71 nearby palm oil mills 117 nearby palm oil millsSCORE 3 2 1

CO

ST

Land Cost Undeveloped Land: $10433.20 per acre (Ismuni 2009) Developed Land: $19140 per acre (Ismuni 2009)

$253519.20 per acre (Landlimitless 2017)

$284307.70 per acre(iProperty 2017)

SCORE 3 2 1Max Electricity Cost (USD/kWh) $ 0.06/kWh $ 0.10/kWh $ 0.08/kWh

WE

AT

HE

R

Average Temperature (Avg Max./Avg Min)

26.6℃ (27.2℃/26.0℃) (World Weather Online 2017)

Northeast monsoon wind from November to March. Southwest monsoon wind from around March to August (Time and Date 2017)

32℃ (34℃/28℃) (Time and Date 2017)

28℃ (32℃/24℃) (World Weather Online 2017)

Average Annual Rainfall 3776.4 mm(World Weather Online 2017)

901 mm(Time and Date 2017)

2500 – 2600 mm (World Weather Online 2017)

Average Relative Humidity 89% (World Weather Online 2017) 79% (Time and Date 2017) 85% (World Weather Online 2017)Average Wind Speed 5.8 mph (World Weather Online 2017) 4.9 mph (Time and Date 2017) 3.1 mph (World Weather Online 2017)SCORE 3 1 2

AC

CE

SAB

ILIT

Y IS

SUE

S

Access To Raw Materials And Utility Supplies Palm Oil Waste: Obtain from nearby palm oil mill (POM) such as Suburmas POM, Sabaju POM, BBC POM and KERESA POM (Google Maps 2017).

Plastic Waste: Obtain from Bintulu’s two landfills – Kidurong and Ulu Segan, which are 60 and 90 km from SIP respectively (Borneo Post Online 2014).

Inexpensive electricity is obtained from Bakun hydroelectric dam (1771MW with only four to six turbines are running). 11 dams are to be built in the future will guarantee constant cheap electricity supply (Samalaju Properties 2017).

Advanced water treatment plant is located in the industrial park to cater water supplies with capacity of 80 million liters per day (SCORE 2017).

Plastic Waste: Tanjung Langsat landfill received approximately 350 tons of wastes from seven different areas every day and 15% of it is plastic waste (Sabeen 2016).

Palm Oil Waste: Obtain from 4 palm oil mills nearby the industrial park (Google Maps 2017).

Electricity is supplied by YTL power generation (1170 MW) and S.J. Sultan Iskandar (210 MW) (Suruhanjaya Tenaga 2014).

Water is supplied by Sultan Iskandar Water Treatment Plant in Sungai Layang. However, due to pollution, there may be disruption of water supplies (The Strait Times 2016).

Palm Oil Waste: Pontian United Plantations (PUP) covered 15678 ha and equipped with Crude Palm Oil (CPO) mill that can cater up to 540000 fresh fruit brunches annually (RHB 2014). Therefore, supplies of palm oil wastes would not be a problem.

Plastic Waste: Volume of wastes received by the landfills is approximately 1024 tonnes/month. However, when the site is full, the council has no plan to restore it when it is closed (Environmental Conservation Department Sabah 2002).

Utilization of diesel plants to generate electricity. The percentage of equivalent availability factor (EAF) is only 63% due to frequent breakdown (Suruhanjaya Tenaga 2014).

SCORE 3 1 2Transport Infrastructure Accessible via Bintulu-Miri coastal road and Pan Borneo

Highway (SCORE 2017) Equipped with Samalaju Industrial Port for import of raw

materials and export of products (SCORE 2017)

36 km from Johor Bahru via Johor Bahru East Coast Highway/Route 35 and approximately an hour drive (Google Maps 2017).

4.2 km from Johor Port and approximately 10 minutes-drive (Google Maps 2017).

21 km from Singapore Customs Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) Centers via Johor Bahru East Coast Highway/Route 35 and approximately 29 minutes-drive (Google Maps 2017).

6.8 km from Lahad Datu via Jalan Kilang and approximately 12 minutes-drive (Google Maps 2017).

850 m from POIC Lahad Datu Phase 1 and approximately 10 minutes on foot (Google Maps 2017).

SCORE 2 3 1

OT

HE

R

FAC

TO

RS

Indigenous Issues No indigenous issues Nil NilEnvironmental Considerations Located in industrial park which had caused pollution and disposal

of toxic wastes is a major issue. A proper plan to deal with the waste from the plant is required. Since it’s far from the residential area, minimal evacuation is required.

Transportations demand in Pasir Gudang is increasing which leads to high carbon emission in the area. Since it is quite a distance from the residential area, medium evacuation is needed.

The common practice to deal with the excess palm oil wastes from the mills is to dump it in the landfills. Since it is close to residential area, immediate evacuation of citizens is required.

SCORE 1 3 2TOTAL SCORE 15 12 9

APPENDIX G: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD)

Figure 5: PFD of Plant

APPENDIX H: PLANT SITE LOCATION ON GOOGLE MAPS

Figure 6: Proposed Site Location (Left) & Aerial View of Samalaju Industrial Park (Right)

REFERENCESAbu El-Rub, Z., E. A. Bramer, and G. Brem. 2004. "Review Of Catalysts For Tar Elimination In Biomass Gasification Processes". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 43 (22): 6911-6919. doi:10.1021/ie0498403.

Ahmad, Anis Atikah, Norfadhila Abdullah Zawawi, Farizul Hafiz Kasim, Abrar Inayat, and Azduwin Khasri. 2016. "Assessing The Gasification Performance Of Biomass: A Review On Biomass Gasification Process Conditions, Optimization And Economic Evaluation". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 53: 1333-1347. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.030.

Alipour Moghadam Esfahani, Reza, Luigi Osmieri, Stefania Specchia, Suzana Yusup, Ahmad Tavasoli, and Akbar Zamaniyan. 2017. "H2-Rich Syngas Production Through Mixed Residual Biomass And HDPE Waste Via Integrated Catalytic Gasification And Tar Cracking Plus Bio-Char Upgrading". Chemical Engineering Journal 308: 578-587. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.049

Aznar, María P., Miguel A. Caballero, Jesús A. Sancho, and E. Francés. 2006. "Plastic Waste Elimination By Co-Gasification With Coal And Biomass In Fluidized Bed With Air In Pilot Plant". Fuel Processing Technology 87 (5): 409-420. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.09.006.

Basu, Prabir. 2010. Biomass Gasification And Pyrolysis. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Basu, Prabir. 2006. Combustion And Gasification In Fluidized Beds. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis

Beckett, P.H. 1961. “Some Sarawak Soils.” Journal of Soil Science 12 (2): 219 – 232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1961.tb00912.x.

Carlos, Romel M, and Do Ba Khang. 2008. "Characterization of biomass energy projects in Southeast Asia." Biomass and Bioenergy no. 32 (6):525-532.

Chan, Fan Liang, and Akshat Tanksale. 2014. "Review Of Recent Developments In Ni-Based Catalysts For Biomass Gasification". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 38: 428-438. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.011.

Chutichai, Bhawasut, Yaneeporn Patcharavorachot, Suttichai Assabumrungrat, and Amornchai Arpornwichanop. 2015. "Parametric Analysis Of A Circulating Fluidized Bed Biomass Gasifier For Hydrogen Production". Energy 82: 406-413. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.051.

Environmental Conservation Department Sabah. 2002. Solid Waste Disposal in Sabah. Sabah: Environmental Conservation Department Sabah. http://ww2.sabah.gov.my/jpas/programs/ecd-cab/background/Landfsurv.pdf

Gil, Javier, José Corella, Marıa P. Aznar, and Miguel A. Caballero. 1999. "Biomass Gasification In Atmospheric And Bubbling Fluidized Bed: Effect Of The Type Of Gasifying Agent On The Product Distribution". Biomass And Bioenergy 17 (5): 389-403. doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(99)00055-0.

Google Maps. 2017. Google Inc. Accessed August 3, https://www.google.com.my/maps/@4.5143683,114.0190555,15z?hl=en

Hambali, E, and M Rivai. "The Potential of Palm Oil Waste Biomass in Indonesia in 2020 and 2030."

Harrison, Douglas P. 2009. "Calcium Enhanced Hydrogen Production With CO2 Capture". Energy Procedia 1 (1): 675-681. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.089.

Herman, Angga Pratama, Suzana Yusup, Muhammad Shahbaz, and David Onoja Patrick. 2016. "Bottom Ash Characterization And Its Catalytic Potential In Biomass Gasification". Procedia Engineering 148: 432-436. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.447.

Ho, C.S., Chau L.W., Teh B.T., Matsuoka Y., Gomi K., Nur Syazwani S., Nadzirah J., Muhammad Akmal Hakim H., Lv Y., and Rahayu A. 2015. “Low Carbon Society Action Plan for Pasir Gudang 2025: Green and Clean Industrial City.” Johor Bahru: UTM – Low Carbon Asia Research Centre.

iProperty. 2017. Sabah Land for Sale. Sabah Land. Accessed July 20, https://www.iproperty.com.my/property/industrial-land-lahad-datu-1894208#dbLDysD2StHtPO5K.97Ismuni, Ismawi. 2009. “Invesment Opportunities in SCORE (Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy.” Paper presented at Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) Regional Conference, Bintulu, Malaysia, August 10. http://www.mia.my/rc/2009/downloads/programme/latepapers/Plenary%20Session%202%20(Part%20I).pdf

“Johor sets aside $26m to boost water supply.” 2016. The Strait Times, November 19. http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/johor-sets-aside-26m-to-boost-water-supply

Kenarsari, Saeed Danaei, and Yuan Zheng. 2015. "CO2 Capture Using Calcium Oxide Under Biomass Gasification Conditions". Journal Of CO2 Utilization 9: 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2014.11.001.

Khatun, Rahima, Mohammad Imam Hasan Reza, M Moniruzzaman, and Zahira Yaakob. 2017. "Sustainable oil palm industry: The possibilities." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews no. 76:608-619.

“Landfill to be built at Samalaju Industrial Park soon.” 2014. Borneo Post Online, April 19. http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/04/19/landfill-to-be-built-at-samalaju-industrial-park-soon/

Landlimitless. 2017. Johor Bahru – Pasir Gudang Industrial Land for Sale. Land Limitless. Accessed July 15, http://www.landlimitless.com/johor-bahru-pasir-gudang-industrial-land-sale/

Li, Bin, Haiping Yang, Liangyuan Wei, Jingai Shao, Xianhua Wang, and Hanping Chen. 2017. "Hydrogen Production From Agricultural Biomass Wastes Gasification In A Fluidized Bed With Calcium Oxide Enhancing". International Journal Of Hydrogen Energy 42 (8): 4832-4839. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.138..

Li, Jianfen, Yanfang Yin, Xuanming Zhang, Jianjun Liu, and Rong Yan. 2009. "Hydrogen-Rich Gas Production By Steam Gasification Of Palm Oil Wastes Over Supported Tri-Metallic Catalyst". International Journal Of Hydrogen Energy 34 (22): 9108-9115. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.030.

Loh, Soh Kheang. 2017. "The potential of the Malaysian oil palm biomass as a renewable energy source." Energy Conversion and Management no. 141:285-298.

Moghadam, Reza Alipour, Suzana Yusup, Yoshimitsu Uemura, Bridgid Lai Fui Chin, Hon Loong Lam, and Ahmed Al Shoaibi. 2014. "Syngas Production From Palm Kernel Shell And Polyethylene Waste Blend In Fluidized Bed Catalytic Steam Co-Gasification Process". Energy 75: 40-44. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.062.

Mohammed, M.A.A., A. Salmiaton, W.A.K.G. Wan Azlina, M.S. Mohammad Amran, A. Fakhru’l-Razi, and Y.H. Taufiq-Yap. 2011. "Hydrogen Rich Gas From Oil Palm Biomass As A Potential Source Of Renewable Energy In Malaysia". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2): 1258-1270. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.10.003.

Mun, Dato’ Leong Kin. 2015. Potential for Waste-to-Energy in Malaysia focus: Biomass. Frankfurt, Germany: Malaysian Biomass Industry Confederation.

Nipattummakul, Nimit, Islam I. Ahmed, Ashwani K. Gupta, and Somrat Kerdsuwan. 2011. "Hydrogen And Syngas Yield From Residual Branches Of Oil Palm Tree Using Steam Gasification". International Journal Of Hydrogen Energy 36 (6): 3835-3843. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.102.

Nordin, Noor Ida Amalina Ahamad, Hidayah Ariffin, Yoshito Andou, Mohd Ali Hassan, Yoshihito Shirai, Haruo Nishida, Wan Md Zin Wan Yunus, Subbian Karuppuchamy, and Nor Azowa Ibrahim. 2013. "Modification of oil palm mesocarp fiber characteristics using superheated steam treatment." Molecules no. 18 (8):9132-9146.

Olivares, Ana, María P. Aznar, Miguel A. Caballero, Javier Gil, Eva Francés, and José Corella. 1997. "Biomass Gasification: Produced Gas Upgrading By In-Bed Use Of Dolomite". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 36 (12): 5220-5226. doi:10.1021/ie9703797.

Quaak, Peter, Harrie Knoef, and Hubert E Stassen. 1999. Energy From Biomass. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

POIC. 2017. Our Plan: Lahad Datu POIC. POIC Sabah Sdn. Bhd. Accessed July 20, http://www.poic.com.my/index.asp?p=ourplan-ldpoic

Rajeev Sukumaran., Michael Stocker., Thallada Bhaskar., Ashok Pandey., and Ashok P. 2015. Recent Advances In Thermo-Chemical Conversion Of Biomass. Elsevier.

RHB. 2014. Felda Global Ventures: Sight and Sound of Lahad Datu. Malaysia: RHB Research Institute Sdn. Bhd.

Ruoppolo, G., P. Ammendola, R. Chirone, and F. Miccio. 2012. "H2-Rich Syngas Production By Fluidized Bed Gasification Of Biomass And Plastic Fuel". Waste Management 32 (4): 724-732. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.004.

Sabeen, A.H., Norzita Ngadi and Zainura Zainon Noor. 2016. “Minimizing cost of municipal solid waste management in Pasir Gudang Johor Malaysia.” J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (5): 1819-1834. https://www.jmaterenvironsci.com/Document/vol7/vol7_N5/199-JMES-1873-Sabeen.pdf

Samalaju Properties. 2017. Building Sustainable and Vibrant Communities: Samalaju Industrial Park. Samalaju Properties Sdn. Bhd. Accessed July 4, http://samalajuproperties.com/?page_id=316

Samiran, Nor Afzanizam, Mohammad Nazri Mohd Jaafar, Jo-Han Ng, Su Shiung Lam, and Cheng Tung Chong. 2016. "Progress In Biomass Gasification Technique – With Focus On Malaysian Palm Biomass For Syngas Production". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 62: 1047-1062. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.049.

Sansaniwal, S.K., K. Pal, M.A. Rosen, and S.K. Tyagi. 2017. "Recent Advances In The Development Of Biomass Gasification Technology: A Comprehensive Review". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 72: 363-384. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.038.

Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE). 2017. Samalaju: Centre for energy-intensive heavy industries. Regional Corridor Development Authority Sarawak. Accessed July 4, http://www.recoda.com.my/score-areas/samalaju/

“Sawal: NREB facing new environmental issues.” 2016. The Borneo Post, May 28. http://www.nreb.gov.my/modules/web/pages.php?mod=news&sub=news_view&nid=249

Shahbaz, Muhammad, Suzana yusup, Abrar Inayat, David Onoja Patrick, and Muhammad Ammar. 2017. "The Influence Of Catalysts In Biomass Steam Gasification And Catalytic Potential Of Coal Bottom Ash In Biomass Steam Gasification: A Review". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 73: 468-476. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.153.

Shen, Yafei, and Kunio Yoshikawa. 2013. "Recent Progresses In Catalytic Tar Elimination During Biomass Gasification Or Pyrolysis—A Review". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 21: 371-392. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.062.

Siedlecki, Marcin, Wiebren De Jong, and Adrian H.M. Verkooijen. 2011. "Fluidized Bed Gasification As A Mature And Reliable Technology For The Production Of Bio-Syngas And Applied In The Production Of Liquid Transportation Fuels—A Review". Energies 4 (12): 389-434. doi:10.3390/en4030389

Soils of Sabah. 2017. Lithosols, red/yellow latosols and podsolics. Government of Sabah. Accessed July 20, http://ww2.sabah.gov.my/htan_caims/Level%201%20frame%20pgs/soils_sabah_fr.htm

Timeanddate.com. 2017. Climate and Weather Averages in Pasir Gudang, Malaysia. Time and Date. Accessed July 15, https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/malaysia/pasir-gudang/climate

Udomsirichakorn, Jakkapong, and P. Abdul Salam. 2014. "Review Of Hydrogen-Enriched Gas Production From Steam Gasification Of Biomass: The Prospect Of Cao-Based Chemical Looping Gasification". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 30: 565-579. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.013.

Umar, Mohd Shaharin, Philip Jennings, and Tania Urmee. 2013. "Strengthening the palm oil biomass Renewable Energy industry in Malaysia." Renewable energy no. 60:107-115.

Weiland, Fredrik, Henrik Wiinikka, Henry Hedman, Jonas Wennebro, Esbjorn Pettersson, and Rikard Gebart. 2015. "Influence Of Process Parameters On The Performance Of An Oxygen Blown Entrained Flow Biomass Gasifier". Fuel 153: 510-519. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.03.041.

World Weather Online. 2017. Bintulu, Sarawak Monthly Climate Averages Malaysia. World Weather Online. Accessed July 10, https://www.worldweatheronline.com/bintulu-weather-averages/sarawak/my.aspx

Wu, Qibai, Thien Ching Qiang, Guoxun Zeng, Haiyan Zhang, Ye Huang, and Yaodong Wang. 2017. "Sustainable and renewable energy from biomass wastes in palm oil industry: A case study in Malaysia." International Journal of Hydrogen Energygy