DOCSLIB.ORG

Gasoline from Wood Via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-To- Gasoline Technologies Steven D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-to- Gasoline Technologies Steven D. Phillips, Joan K. Tarud, Mary J. Biddy, and Abhijit Dutta NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5100-47594 January 2011 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Gasoline from Wood via Integrated Gasification, Synthesis, and Methanol-to- Gasoline Technologies Steven D. Phillips, Joan K. Tarud, Mary J. Biddy, and Abhijit Dutta Prepared under Task No. BB07.3710 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-5100-47594 Golden, Colorado 80401 January 2011 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:[email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721 Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. Executive Summary This report documents the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) assessment of the feasibility of making gasoline via the methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) route using syngas from a 2,000 dry metric tonne/day (2,205 U.S. ton/day) biomass-fed facility. The thermochemical route of biomass gasification produces a syngas rich in hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The syngas is then converted into methanol, and the methanol is converted to gasoline using the methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) process first developed by Exxon Mobil. Using a methodology similar to that used in previous NREL design reports and a feedstock cost of $50.70/dry U.S. ton ($55.89/dry metric tonne), a plant gate price (PGP) was estimated. For the base case the PGP is predicted to be $16.60/MMBtu ($15.73/GJ) (U.S. $2007) for gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from biomass via gasification of wood, methanol synthesis, and the methanol-to-gasoline process (MTG). The corresponding unit prices for gasoline and LPG are $1.95/gallon ($0.52/liter) and $1.53/gallon ($0.40/liter) with yields of 55.1 and 9.3 gallons per U.S. ton of dry biomass (229.9 and 38.8 liters per metric tonne of dry biomass), respectively. For comparison to ethanol, this is $1.39 per gallon ($0.37/liter) ethanol on an energy equivalent basis. In comparison, based on analysis work completed at NREL, the predicted plant gate prices for ethanol produced via the thermochemical and biochemical pathways are $1.57 per gallon ($0.41 per liter) and $1.49 per gallon ($0.39 per liter), respectively (OBP 2009). Note that the PGP is for the base case. A sensitivity analysis is included in the report to demonstrate the impact that modifications in the design and costing assumptions have on the PGP. A range of PGP values is to be expected due to uncertainties in capital costs, yields, and technoeconomic factors. This report is a future look at the potential of the described biomass-to-gasoline process, based on calculations for a mature plant (also called the nth plant) and 2012 technology targets as established in the Multi-Year Technical Plan of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of the Biomass Program. In order to achieve the $1.95/gallon ($0.52/liter) PGP, there are critical research milestones that must be achieved. First, the 2012 tar reforming targets of 99.9% tar and 80% methane conversion (among others) are essential. Also, utilization of a fluidized bed MTG reactor, instead of the commercially proven fixed bed, is pertinent in keeping capital costs down. Thus, further research on this type of reactor is needed 1) to verify that at the conditions specified the products generated match the model assumptions and 2) to analyze effects of scale- up on product distribution. It should be emphasized that the PGP for a first-of-a-kind plant will be significantly higher than the PGP for an nth plant. To predict the PGP for this study, a new technoeconomic model was developed in Aspen Plus, based on the model developed for NREL’s thermochemical ethanol design report (Phillips et al. 2007). The necessary process changes were incorporated into a biomass-to-gasoline model using a methanol synthesis operation followed by conversion, upgrading, and finishing to gasoline. Results of the simulation were used to obtain mass and energy flows, which were then used to size and estimate the cost of process equipment in an Excel spreadsheet-based economic model. This report follows the approach taken in the thermochemical ethanol design case: the DOE Office of the Biomass Program’s 2012 research targets were used for the gasifier and tar reformer operation (Phillips et al. 2007). The methanol and MTG processes were modeled using published results. iii A discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFROR) calculation was performed to determine the PGP required to meet a 10% internal rate of return (IRR). A thermal basis approach was used to account for co-products (LPG and electricity). Instead of assigning a market value to co-products and then using income from the sale of those products to offset operating costs, we used total energy production to determine the PGP on a cost per energy basis (e.g., $/MMBtu or $/GJ) using all products in the calculation. The higher heating value of the individual products was then used to calculate the volumetric cost of the fuels and the per-kilowatt-hour cost of electricity. This approach allocates a proportional fraction of the capital and operating costs for the plant to each of the main products. The overall plant efficiency was 42.6% (lower heating value [LHV] basis) and the carbon efficiency to LPG and gasoline was 31%. The efficiency to the desired gasoline product was 37.7% LHV and 28% carbon efficiency. The gasifier efficiency was 74.9%. Potential process improvements include utilizing more of the tail gases to make products other than heat and electricity. Because all of the power for the plant ultimately comes from the biomass fed to the plant, any energy efficiency improvements to the plant should improve product yields. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................2 1.2 Methanol and Methanol-to-Gasoline (MTG) Technology Discussion ................................4 1.3 Gasoline Discussion .............................................................................................................9 1.4 Analysis Approach .............................................................................................................10 1.5 Process Design Overview ..................................................................................................13 1.6 Feedstock and Plant Size ...................................................................................................15 2 Process Description ........................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Feed Handling & Preparation – Area 100 ..........................................................................17 2.2
Recommended publications
  • Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification

    Storing Syngas Lowers the Carbon Price for Profitable Coal Gasification

    Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Storing syngas lowers the carbon price for profitable coal gasification ADAM NEWCOMER AND JAY APT Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 254 Posner Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power generation systems with carbon capture and sequestration have desirable environmental qualities, but are not profitable when the carbon dioxide price is less than approximately $50 per metric ton. We examine whether an IGCC facility that operates its gasifier continuously but stores the syngas and produces electricity only when daily prices are high may be profitable at significantly lower CO2 prices. Using a probabilistic analysis, we have calculated the plant-level return on investment (ROI) and the value of syngas storage for IGCC facilities located in the US Midwest using a range of storage configurations. Adding a second turbine to use the stored syngas to generate electricity at peak hours and implementing 12 hours of above ground high pressure syngas storage significantly increases the ROI and net present value. Storage lowers the carbon price at which IGCC enters the US generation mix by approximately 25%. 1 Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-10 www.cmu.edu/electricity Introduction Producing electricity from coal-derived synthesis gas (syngas) in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility can improve criteria pollutant performance over other coal-fueled technologies such as pulverized coal (PC) facilities [1-5] and can be implemented with carbon capture and sequestration.
  • New Federal Law Addresses Excise Tax on LNG, LPG, And

    New Federal Law Addresses Excise Tax on LNG, LPG, And

    Multistate Tax EXTERNAL ALERT New federal law addresses excise tax on LNG, LPG, and CNG August 13, 2015 Overview President Obama recently signed into law the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (H.R. 3236).1 Effective January 1, 2016, the new law equalizes the federal excise tax treatment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and provides further guidance applicable to the taxation of compressed natural gas (CNG). This Tax Alert summarizes these federal excise tax law changes. The federal excise tax on alternative fuels Currently, under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) §4041, the federal excise tax on “alternative fuels” is imposed when such fuels are sold for use or used as a fuel in a motor vehicle or motorboat.2 The term “alternative fuels” includes, but is not limited to, LNG, CNG, and LPG.3 LNG is currently subject to tax at the federal diesel fuel tax rate of 24.3 cents per gallon.4 However, LNG contains a lower energy content than diesel. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, LNG has an energy content of 74,700 Btu per gallon (lower heating value), while diesel has an energy content of 128,450 Btu per gallon (lower heating value).5 Therefore, one gallon of LNG has the energy equivalency of 58 percent of one gallon of diesel fuel, although LNG is currently taxed as having the energy equivalency of 100 percent of one gallon of diesel fuel.6 Similarly, LPG is currently subject to tax at the federal gasoline tax rate of 18.3 cents per gallon.7 However, LPG contains a lower energy content than gasoline.
  • Final Report Study on the Potential of Increased Use of LPG for Cooking in Developing Countries

    Final Report Study on the Potential of Increased Use of LPG for Cooking in Developing Countries

    Final Report Study on the Potential of Increased Use of LPG for Cooking in Developing Countries September 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Purpose and Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................................................................
  • Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

    Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

    Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Demand, Supply and Future Perspectives for Sudan Synthesis report of a workshop held in Khartoum, 12-13 December 2010 The workshop was funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development Cover image: © UNAMID / Albert Gonzalez Farran This report is available online at: www.unep.org/sudan Disclaimer The material in this report does not necessarily represent the views of any of the organisations involved in the preparation and hosting of the workshop. It must be noted that some time has passed between the workshop and the dissemination of this report, during which some important changes have taken place, not least of which is the independence of South Sudan, a fact which greatly affects the national energy context. Critically, following the independence, the rate of deforestation in the Republic of Sudan has risen from 0.7% per year to 2.2% per year, making many of the discussions within this document all the more relevant. Whilst not directly affecting the production of LPG, which is largely derived from oil supplies north of the border with South Sudan, the wider context of the economics of the energy sector, and the economy as a whole, have changed. These changes are not reflected in this document. This being said, it is strongly asserted that this document still represents a useful contribution to the energy sector, particularly given its contribution to charting the breadth of perspectives on LPG in the Republic of Sudan. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Demand, Supply and Future Perspectives for Sudan Synthesis report of a workshop held in Khartoum, 12-13 December 2010 A joint publication by: Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Physical Development – Sudan, Ministry of Petroleum – Sudan, United Kingdom Department for International Development, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Environment Programme Table of contents Acronyms and abbreviations .
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg

    Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg

    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
  • Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues

    Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues

    fermentation Article Gasification of Woody Biomasses and Forestry Residues: Simulation, Performance Analysis, and Environmental Impact Sahar Safarian 1,*, Seyed Mohammad Ebrahimi Saryazdi 2, Runar Unnthorsson 1 and Christiaan Richter 1 1 Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, University of Iceland, Hjardarhagi 6, 107 Reykjavik, Iceland; [email protected] (R.U.); [email protected] (C.R.) 2 Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Sharif University of Technologies, Tehran P.O. Box 14597-77611, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Wood and forestry residues are usually processed as wastes, but they can be recovered to produce electrical and thermal energy through processes of thermochemical conversion of gasification. This study proposes an equilibrium simulation model developed by ASPEN Plus to investigate the performance of 28 woody biomass and forestry residues’ (WB&FR) gasification in a downdraft gasifier linked with a power generation unit. The case study assesses power generation in Iceland from one ton of each feedstock. The results for the WB&FR alternatives show that the net power generated from one ton of input feedstock to the system is in intervals of 0 to 400 kW/ton, that more that 50% of the systems are located in the range of 100 to 200 kW/ton, and that, among them, the gasification system derived by tamarack bark significantly outranks all other systems by producing 363 kW/ton. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems is assessed based on the impact categories of global warming (GWP), acidification (AP), and eutrophication (EP) potentials and Citation: Safarian, S.; Ebrahimi normalizes the environmental impact.
  • Harmon of Energ THIRD REVIS Onisation of Definitions Rgy

    Harmon of Energ THIRD REVIS Onisation of Definitions Rgy

    Harmononisation of Definitions of Energrgy Products and Flows THIRD REVISISION OF THE DEFINITIOIONS Part 1: Flows IEA,A, Paris, 21 December 2009 Table of Contents Page Note by Tim Simmons ............................................................................................................................. 5 Flow Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Definition of National Territory (not in flow classification) ................................................................... 9 Supply .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Production .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Receipts from Other Sources ................................................................................................................. 16 Imports and Exports .............................................................................................................................. 18 International Marine Bunkers ................................................................................................................ 21 International Aviation Bunkers ............................................................................................................. 22 Stocks (not in flow classification) ........................................................................................................
  • Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes

    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes

    Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes Final report NNFCC project 09/008 A project funded by DECC, project managed by NNFCC and conducted by E4Tech June 2009 Review of technology for the gasification of biomass and wastes E4tech, June 2009 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Introduction to gasification and fuel production ...................................................................... 1 1.4 Introduction to gasifier types .................................................................................................... 3 2 Syngas conversion to liquid fuels .................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Fischer-Tropsch synthesis ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Methanol synthesis ................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Mixed alcohols synthesis .........................................................................................................
  • Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal

    Proposal for Development of Dry Coking/Coal

    Development of Coking/Coal Gasification Concept to Use Indiana Coal for the Production of Metallurgical Coke, Liquid Transportation Fuels, Fertilizer, and Bulk Electric Power Phase II Final Report September 30, 2007 Submitted by Robert Kramer, Ph.D. Director, Energy Efficiency and Reliability Center Purdue University Calumet Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………..…………… 3 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… 5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 7 Process Description ……………………………………………………………. 11 Importance to Indiana Coal Use ……………………………………………… 36 Relevance to Previous Studies ………………………………………………. 40 Policy, Scientific and Technical Barriers …………………………………….. 49 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 50 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………… 52 2 Executive Summary Coke is a solid carbon fuel and carbon source produced from coal that is used to melt and reduce iron ore. Although coke is an absolutely essential part of iron making and foundry processes, currently there is a shortfall of 5.5 million tons of coke per year in the United States. The shortfall has resulted in increased imports and drastic increases in coke prices and market volatility. For example, coke delivered FOB to a Chinese port in January 2004 was priced at $60/ton, but rose to $420/ton in March 2004 and in September 2004 was $220/ton. This makes clear the likelihood that prices will remain high. This effort that is the subject of this report has considered the suitability of and potential processes for using Indiana coal for the production of coke in a mine mouth or local coking/gasification-liquefaction process. Such processes involve multiple value streams that reduce technical and economic risk. Initial results indicate that it is possible to use blended coal with up to 40% Indiana coal in a non recovery coke oven to produce pyrolysis gas that can be selectively extracted and used for various purposes including the production of electricity and liquid transportation fuels and possibly fertilizer and hydrogen.
  • Fullerene-Acene Chemistry

    Fullerene-Acene Chemistry

    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2007 Fullerene-acene chemistry: Part I Studies on the regioselective reduction of acenes and acene quinones; Part II Progress toward the synthesis of large acenes and their Diels-Alder chemistry with [60]fullerene Andreas John Athans University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Athans, Andreas John, "Fullerene-acene chemistry: Part I Studies on the regioselective reduction of acenes and acene quinones; Part II Progress toward the synthesis of large acenes and their Diels-Alder chemistry with [60]fullerene" (2007). Doctoral Dissertations. 363. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/363 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FULLERENE-ACENE CHEMISTRY: PART I: STUDIES ON THE REGIOSELECTIVE REDUCTION OF ACENES AND ACENE QUINONES; PART II: PROGRESS TOWARD THE SYNTHESIS OF LARGE ACENES AND THEIR DIELS- ALDER CHEMISTRY WITH [60]FULLERENE VOLUME 1 CHAPTERS 1-5 BY ANDREAS JOHN ATHANS B.S. University of New Hampshire, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy m Chemistry May, 2007 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3 2 6 0 5 8 6 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
  • Influence of the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Systems In

    Influence of the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Systems In

    energies Article Influence of the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Systems in Woodchippers Powered by Small Engines on Exhaust Emissions and Operating Costs Łukasz Warguła 1,* , Mateusz Kukla 1 , Piotr Lijewski 2, Michał Dobrzy ´nski 2 and Filip Markiewicz 2 1 Institute of Machine Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 3, PL-60965 Poznan, Poland; [email protected] 2 Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Drives, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Transport, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 3, PL-60965 Poznan, Poland; [email protected] (P.L.); [email protected] (M.D.); fi[email protected] (F.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-(61)-665-20-42 Received: 12 August 2020; Accepted: 3 November 2020; Published: 4 November 2020 Abstract: The use of alternative fuels is a contemporary trend in science aimed at the protection of non-renewable resources, reducing the negative impact on people and reducing the negative impact on the natural environment. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is an alternative fuel within the meaning of the European Union Directive (2014/94/UE), as it is an alternative for energy sources derived from crude oil. The use of LPG fuel in low-power internal combustion engines is one of the currently developed scientific research directions. It results from the possibility of limiting air pollutant emissions compared to the commonly used gasoline and the lower cost of this fuel in many countries. By “gasoline 95” the Authors mean non-lead petrol as a flammable liquid that is used primarily as a fuel in most spark-ignited internal combustion engines, whereas 95 is an octane rating (octane number).
  • Comparison Between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage

    Comparison Between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage

    energies Article Comparison between Hydrogen and Syngas Fuels in an Integrated Micro Gas Turbine/Solar Field with Storage Maria Cristina Cameretti, Alessandro Cappiello, Roberta De Robbio * and Raffaele Tuccillo Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80125 Naples, Italy; [email protected] (M.C.C.); [email protected] (A.C.); raff[email protected] (R.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 June 2020; Accepted: 3 September 2020; Published: 12 September 2020 Abstract: In recent years, the use of alternative fuels in thermal engine power plants has gained more and more attention, becoming of paramount importance to overcome the use of fuels from fossil sources and to reduce polluting emissions. The present work deals with the analysis of the response to two different gas fuels—i.e., hydrogen and a syngas from agriculture product—of a 30 kW micro gas turbine integrated with a solar field. The solar field included a thermal storage system to partially cover loading requests during night hours, reducing fuel demand. Additionally, a Heat Recovery Unit was included in the plant considered and the whole plant was simulated by Thermoflex® code. Thermodynamics analysis was performed on hour-to-hour basis, for a given day as well as for 12 months; subsequently, an evaluation of cogeneration efficiency as well as energy saving was made. The results are compared against plant performance achieved with conventional natural gas fueling. After analyzing the performance of the plant through a thermodynamic analysis, the study was complemented with CFD simulations of the combustor, to evaluate the combustion development and pollutant emissions formation, particularly of NOx, with the two fuels considered using Ansys-Fluent code, and a comparison was made.