Blends of coal with potential fuels, such as bagasse, may help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study investigates the combined effect of Thar lignite coal and sugarcane bagasse on their suitability for gasification or combustion. Extensive experimental investigations were conducted to assess the suitability of these blends as potential fuels. The Gross Calorific Value of Thar coal blended with sugarcane bagasse was found to be ∼8,610 Btu/lb, 8,387 Btu/lb, 7,968 Btu/lb, and 7,448 Btu/lb after being mixed in ratios of 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% with coal, respectively. Thermogravimetric analysis revealed weight loss with increasing temperature in Thar coal; the data obtained will help in setting parameters for fluidized bed conditions. The activation energy and frequency factor were determined to be 68.11 kJ/mol and 636.60 min−1, respectively. Gamma spectrometry was also performed on these samples, revealing the presence of four main natural radioactive elements: 127.4 ± 45.2 Bq/kg for 40K, 2.1 ± 0.3 Bq/kg for 235U, 71.2 ± 12.1 Bq/kg for 238U, and 20.7 ± 3.1 Bq/kg for 40K, 235U, 238U, and 232Th. The radiometric measurements of Thar coal show lower emissions compared with the global average values of activity concentration in coal samples. The composition of a 50% bagasse and Thar coal blend results in a notable reduction in sulfur and ash content; however, there is some compromise in the heating value (from 8,610 to 7,969 Btu/lb). The findings of the present study will significantly impact sustainable energy and environmental protection by demonstrating that blending sugarcane bagasse with Thar lignite coal can effectively reduce GHG emissions, thereby contributing to cleaner energy production. These results encourage policymakers and industry stakeholders to adopt biomass-coal blending for sustainable development and environmental benefits. Future research should focus on developing advanced gasification and combustion technologies, along with comprehensive emission control measures, to further reduce GHGs and enhance energy efficiency.
AbbasiSA, HarijanK, MemonZA, et al.Is coal power generation a sustainable solution for energy needs of Pakistan: A Delphi-SWOT paradigm? IJEEP2020;11(1):308–317; doi: 10.32479/ijeep.10598
2.
AbdinZ. Bridging the energy future: The role and potential of hydrogen co-firing with natural gas. J Clean Prod2024;436:140724; doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140724
3.
AliM, NiaziF, SiddiquiMA, et al.Comparative study on oven and solar drying of agricultural residues and food crops. Int J Renew Energy Dev2022;11(4):1165–1178; doi: 10.14710/ijred.2022.45180
4.
Al-MoftahAMS, MarshR, SteerJ. Thermogravimetric kinetic analysis of non-recyclable waste CO2 gasification with catalysts using coats–Redfern method. ChemEng2022;6(2):22; doi: 10.3390/chemengineering6020022
5.
BhattacharyyaSC. Economics of non-renewable energy supply. In: Energy Economics. Springer; 2019; pp. 175–215.
6.
BiaginiE, LippiF, PetarcaL, et al.Devolatilization rate of biomasses and coal–biomass blends: An experimental investigation. Fuel2002;81(8):1041–1050; doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00204-6
7.
ButtJA, NergisY, AllauddinU, et al.Impact of coal quality on power plant and environment: Assessment of physiochemical and ash composition of Thar coal from Pakistan. Arab J Geosci2023;16(8):455; doi: 10.1007/s12517-023-11552-5
8.
ButtJA, NergisY, HussainA, et al.Physiochemical assessment of Pakistani Thar coal, a solution for sustainable energy crises and reduced environmental impacts. JEAS2021;40(2):100–109; doi: 10.17582/journal.jeas/40.2.100.109
ChandelAK, da SilvaSS, CarvalhoW, et al.Sugarcane bagasse and leaves: Foreseeable biomass of biofuel and bioproducts. J of Chemical Tech & Biotech2012;87(1):11–20; doi: 10.1002/jctb.2742
11.
ChenJ, ChenP, YaoD, et al.Abundance, distribution, and modes of occurrence of uranium in Chinese coals. Minerals2017;7(12):239.
12.
DuliuOG, CulicovOA, RãdulescuI, et al.Major, trace, and natural radioactive elements in bituminous coal from Australia, Romania, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine: A comparative study. J Radioanal Nucl Chem2005;264(3):525–534; doi: 10.1007/s10967-005-0748-z
13.
ĐuraševićM, KandićA, StefanovićP, et al.Natural radioactivity in lignite samples from open pit mines “Kolubara”, Serbia–risk assessment. Appl Radiat Isot2014;87:73–76; doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.11.096
14.
DwivediKK, KarmakarMK, ChatterjeePK, et al.Thermal degradation, characterization and kinetic modeling of different particle size coal through TGA. Therm Sci Eng Prog2020;18:100523; doi: 10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100523
15.
FilonchykM, PetersonMP, YanH, et al.Greenhouse gas emissions and reduction strategies for the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. Sci Total Environ2024;944:173895; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173895
16.
GalinaNR, LunaCMR, ArceGL, et al.Comparative study on combustion and oxy-fuel combustion environments using mixtures of coal with sugarcane bagasse and biomass sorghum bagasse by the thermogravimetric analysis. J Energy Inst2019;92(3):741–754; doi: 10.1016/j.joei.2018.02.008
17.
GuoJ, LuaAC. Kinetic study on pyrolytic process of oil-palm solid waste using two-step consecutive reaction model. Biomass Bioenergy2001;20(3):223–233; doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00080-5
18.
GurbuzH. The effect of H2 purity on the combustion, performance, emissions and energy costs in an SI engine. Therm Sci2020;24(1 Part A):37–49; doi: 10.2298/TSCI180705315G
19.
GürelB, KurtuluşK, YurdakulS, et al.Numerical and experimental investigation of co-combustion of chicken manure and lignite blends in a CFBB with a novel compact combustion chamber. Energy2023;285:129482; doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.129482
20.
GürelB, KurtuluşK, YurdakulS, et al.Combustion of chicken manure and Turkish lignite mixtures in a circulating fluidized bed. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2024;189:113960; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113960
21.
HameedZ, AslamM, KhanZ, et al.Gasification of municipal solid waste blends with biomass for energy production and resources recovery: Current status, hybrid technologies and innovative prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2021;136:110375; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110375
22.
IAEA. Extent of environmental contamination by naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technological options for mitigation. IAEA; 2021.
23.
ImranAM, WidodoS, IrvanUR. Correlation of fixed carbon content and calorific value of South Sulawesi Coal, Indonesia. In: IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci2020;473(1):e012106; doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/473/1/012106
KayaköküH, KuluöztürkMF. Evaluation of environmental radioactivity and heavy metal pollution in mining areas in Malatya (Turkey). J Radioanal Nucl Chem2024:1–12; doi: 10.1007/s10967-024-09859-y
27.
Kijo-KleczkowskaA, SzumeraM, GnatowskiA, et al.Comparative thermal analysis of coal fuels, biomass, fly ash and polyamide. Energy2022;258:124840; doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124840
28.
KrishnamoorthyS, KuppamC, MamillaCR. Evaluation of carbon capture methodologies, mechanisms, and improvements for sustainable carbon dioxide mitigation using microalgae. Ind Biotechnol2024;20(5):186–203; doi: 10.1089/ind.2024.0015
29.
LauerN, VengoshA, DaiS. Naturally occurring radioactive materials in uranium-rich coals and associated coal combustion residues from China. Environ Sci Technol2017;51(22):13487–13493.
30.
LiuQ, ZhongW, YuA, et al.Co-firing of coal and biomass under pressurized oxy-fuel combustion mode in a 10 kWth fluidized bed: Nitrogen and sulfur pollutants. Chem Eng J2022;450:138401; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.138401
31.
MahmoodA, WangX, ShahzadAN, et al.Perspectives on bioenergy feedstock development in Pakistan: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainability2021;13(15):8438; doi: 10.3390/su13158438
32.
MatinSS, ChelganiSC. Estimation of coal gross calorific value based on various analyses by random forest method. Fuel2016;177:274–278; doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.03.031
33.
MehdiSN, KhanZM, FaridHU, et al.Analyzing the combustion characteristics of Thar coal block XI: A comprehensive study. Results Eng2024;24:103038; doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103038
34.
MongedMH, Abu KhatitaAM, El-HemamyST, et al.Environmental assessment of radioactivity levels and radiation hazards in soil at North Western-Mediterranean Sea coast, Egypt. Environ Earth Sci2020;79(16):386; doi: 10.1007/s12665-020-09131-y
35.
MortariDA, TorquatoLD, CrespiMS, et al.Co-firing of blends of sugarcane bagasse and coal: Thermal and kinetic behaviors. J Therm Anal Calorim2018;132(2):1333–1345; doi: 10.1007/s10973-018-6996-2
36.
MualaA, NicklassonH, BomanC, et al.Respiratory tract deposition of inhaled wood smoke particles in healthy volunteers. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv2015;28(4):237–246; doi: 10.1089/jamp.2014.1122
37.
NaskarN, LahiriS, ChaudhuriP. Anomalies in quantitative measurement of 40K in natural samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem2018;316(2):709–715; doi: 10.1007/s10967-018-5777-5
38.
NdontchuengM, NguelemE, MotaponO, et al.Radiological hazards in soil from the bauxite deposits sites in Dschang Region of Cameroon. BJAST2015;5(4):342–352; doi: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/13352
39.
NzihouJF, HamidouS, BoudaM, et al.Using Dulong and Vandralek formulas to estimate the calorific heating value of a household waste model. Int J Sci Eng Res2014;5(1):1878–1883.
40.
OkemeIC, ScottTB, MartinPG, et al.Assessment of the mode of occurrence and radiological impact of radionuclides in Nigerian coal and resultant post-combustion coal ash using scanning electron microscopy and gamma-ray spectroscopy. Minerals2020;10(3):241; doi: 10.3390/min10030241
41.
OnochieUP, OfomatahAC, OwamahHI, et al.Assessment of the compatibility of biomass-coal blends for cleaner energy utilization and sustainable development. Biomass Conv Bioref2025;15(5):7421–7434; doi: 10.1007/s13399-024-05771-3
42.
PernickaF, AndreoP, MeghzifeneA, et al.Standards for radiation protection and diagnostic radiology at the IAEA dosimetry laboratory. INIS-XA1999;176:12–23. Available at: https://inis.iaea.org/records/t794v-j3h97
43.
PiccianoP, AguilarFX, BurtrawD, et al.Environmental and socio-economic implications of woody biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants. Resour Energy Econ2022;68:101296.
44.
PoradaS. The reactions of formation of selected gas products during coal pyrolysis. Fuel2004;83(9):1191–1196; doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2003.11.007
45.
RokniE, RenX, PanahiA, et al.Emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2, and HCl from co-firing of coals with raw and torrefied biomass fuels. Fuel2018;211:363–374; doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.09.049
46.
SaidurR, AbdelazizEA, DemirbasA, et al.A review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2011;15(5):2262–2289; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.015
47.
SamiM, AnnamalaiK, WooldridgeM. Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends. Prog Energy Combust Sci2001;27(2):171–214; doi: 10.1016/S0360-1285(00)00020-4
48.
SarvaraminiA, AssimaGP, BeaudoinG, et al.Biomass torrefaction and CO2 capture using mining wastes—A new approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions of co-firing plants. Fuel2014;115:749–757; doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.07.087
49.
ShaheenS, JabbarA, IlyasSZ, et al.Occupational radiological risk assessment and quantification of natural radionuclides present in Pakistani coal. Int J Environ Anal Chem2025;105(1):80–105; doi: 10.1080/03067319.2023.2247996
50.
SinghR, SinghV. Integrated biorefinery for valorization of engineered bioenergy crops—A review. Ind Biotechnol2021;17(5):271–282; doi: 10.1089/ind.2021.0020
UNSCEAR. Sources and effects of ionising radiation. Volume I: Sources. UNSCEAR. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes A and B. United Nations: New York; 2010.
53.
VamvukaD, KakarasE. Ash properties and environmental impact of various biomass and coal fuels and their blends. Fuel Process Technol2011;92(3):570–581; doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2010.11.013
54.
VarolM, GürelB, YurdakulS, et al.PCDD/Fs, PAHs and HCl emissions from co-combustion of lignite and chicken manure in a circulating fluidized bed boiler with compact refractory casting. Waste Manag2023;168:423–430; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.06.029
55.
WangY, JiaL, GuoB, et al.Investigation of interaction mechanisms during co-combustion of sewage sludge and coal slime: Combustion characteristics and NO/SO2 emission behavior. Sci Total Environ2022;851(Pt 1):158166.
56.
YousufuddinS, MahrousEN, SaleemM. Experimental analysis of hydrogen addition at varying injection opening pressures on a dual-fuel diesel engine operating with diesel and cottonseed oil. Arab J Sci Eng2025;50(12):9291–9305; doi: 10.1007/s13369-024-09326-6
57.
YurdakulS, GürelB, VarolM, et al.Investigation on thermal degradation kinetics and mechanisms of chicken manure, lignite, and their blends by TGA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021:1–11; doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12732-0
58.
ZengX, ZhengS, ZhouH. The phenomena of secondary weight loss in high-temperature coal pyrolysis. Energy Fuels2017;31(9):10178–10185; doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01613
59.
ZhuQ. Coal sampling and analysis standards. IEA Clean Coal Centre: London, UK; 2014; p. 143.
