Methanol-Managing greenhouse gas emissions in the production chain by optimizing the resource base

Raili Kajaste; Markku Hurme; Pekka Oinas; Raili Kajaste; Markku Hurme; Pekka Oinas

doi:10.3934/energy.2018.6.1074

AIMS Energy

2018, Volume 6, Issue 6: 1074-1102. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.6.1074

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Methanol-Managing greenhouse gas emissions in the production chain by optimizing the resource base

Aalto University, School of Chemical Engineering, Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Finland

Received: 14 October 2018 Accepted: 19 December 2018 Published: 26 December 2018

The growing demand for methanol as fuel and global competition for resources are key drivers behind the need to find new routes for the production of bulk chemicals such as methanol. Widening the resource base is also linked to the increasing concentrations of methane in the atmosphere. Furthermore, managing greenhouse gas emissions is vital in developing new technologies. This paper compares production routes for methanol based on a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA is limited to the impact categories of global warming potential (GWP₁₀₀) and energy use. The highest GWP₁₀₀value of 2.97 kg CO₂eq/kg CH₃OH is for methanol from coal, and the lowest, negative emission of 0.99 kg CO₂eq/kg CH₃OH is for methanol in co-production with renewable corn ethanol. A comparison of production routes is performed using the carbon dioxide equivalent abatement cost, and the production cost of methanol. The best performing technology on both production cost and GWP₁₀₀ is methanol produced by gasification from wood biomass. The factors affecting the results are addressed. >
- methanol,
- greenhouse gases,
- resource base,
- renewable resources,
- circular economy
Citation: Raili Kajaste, Markku Hurme, Pekka Oinas. Methanol-Managing greenhouse gas emissions in the production chain by optimizing the resource base[J]. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(6): 1074-1102. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.6.1074

Related Papers:

Abstract

The growing demand for methanol as fuel and global competition for resources are key drivers behind the need to find new routes for the production of bulk chemicals such as methanol. Widening the resource base is also linked to the increasing concentrations of methane in the atmosphere. Furthermore, managing greenhouse gas emissions is vital in developing new technologies. This paper compares production routes for methanol based on a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA is limited to the impact categories of global warming potential (GWP₁₀₀) and energy use. The highest GWP₁₀₀value of 2.97 kg CO₂eq/kg CH₃OH is for methanol from coal, and the lowest, negative emission of 0.99 kg CO₂eq/kg CH₃OH is for methanol in co-production with renewable corn ethanol. A comparison of production routes is performed using the carbon dioxide equivalent abatement cost, and the production cost of methanol. The best performing technology on both production cost and GWP₁₀₀ is methanol produced by gasification from wood biomass. The factors affecting the results are addressed. >

References

[1]	Räuchle K, Plass L, Wernicke HJ, et al. (2016) Methanol for renewable energy storage and utilization. Energ Technol 4: 193–200. doi: 10.1002/ente.201500322
[2]	Su LW, Li XR, Sun ZY (2013) Flow chart of methanol in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28: 541–550. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.020
[3]	MCGroup (2018) Methanol: 2018 World Market Outlook and Forecast up to 2027. Available from: https://mcgroup.co.uk/researches/methanol.
[4]	IHS. Methanol, Marc Alvarado, February 2016. Available from: http://www.methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Marc-Alvarado-Global-Methanol-February-2016-IMPCA-for-upload-to-website.pdf.
[5]	Brynolf S, Fridell E, Andersson K (2014) Environmental assessment of marine fuels: Liqueﬁed natural gas, liqueﬁed biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J Clean Prod 74: 86–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.052
[6]	Pontzen F, Liebner W, Gronemann V, et al. (2011) CO₂-based methanol and DME-Efﬁcient technologies for industrial scale production. Catal Today 171: 242–250. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2011.04.049
[7]	Bermúdez JM, Ferrera-Lorenzo N, Luque S, et al. (2013) New process for producing methanol from coke oven gas by means of CO₂ reforming. Comparison with conventional process. Fuel Process Technol 115: 215–221.
[8]	Saunois M, Jackson RB, Bousquet P, et al. (2016) The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ Res Lett 11: 1–5.
[9]	Riaz A, Zahedi G, Klemes JJ (2013) A review of cleaner production methods for the manufacture of methanol. J Clean Prod 57: 19–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.017
[10]	Anicic B, Trop P, Goricanec D (2014) Comparison between two methods of methanol production from carbon dioxide. Energy 77: 279–289. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.069
[11]	Tidona B, Koppold C, Bansode A, et al. (2013) CO₂ hydrogenation to methanol at pressures up to 950 bar. J Supercrit Fluid 78: 70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2013.03.027
[12]	Narvaez A, Chadwick D, Kershenbaum L (2014) Small-medium scale polygeneration systems: Methanol and power production. Appl Energy 113: 1109–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.065
[13]	Soltanieh M, Azar KM, Saber M (2012) Development of a zero emission integrated system for co-production of electricity and methanol through renewable hydrogen and CO₂ capture. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 7: 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.01.008
[14]	Zhang Y, Cruz J, Zhang S, et al. (2013) Process simulation and optimization of methanol production coupled to tri-reforming process. Int J Hydrogen Energ 38: 13617–13630. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.08.009
[15]	Minutillo M, Perna A (2010) A novel approach for treatment of CO₂ from fossil ﬁred power plants. Part B: The energy suitability of integrated tri-reforming power plants (ITRPPs) for methanol production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 35: 7012–7020.
[16]	Matzen M, Demirel Y (2016) Methanol and dimethyl ether from renewable hydrogen and carbon dioxide: Alternative fuels production and life-cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 139: 1068–1077. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.163
[17]	Meerman JC, Ramírez A, Turkenburg WC, et al. (2011) Performance of simulated ﬂexible integrated gasiﬁcation polygeneration facilities. Part A: A technical-energetic assessment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15: 2563–2587.
[18]	Van Rens G, Huisman G, De Lathouder H, et al. (2011) Performance and exergy analysis of biomass-to-fuel plants producing methanol, dimethylether or hydrogen. Biomass Bioenerg 35: S145–S154. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.05.020
[19]	Melin K, Kohl T, Koskinen J, et al. (2015) Performance of biofuel process utilising separate lignin and carbohydrate processing. Bioresource Technol 192: 397–409. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.022
[20]	Melin K, Kohl T, Koskinen J, et al. (2016) Enhanced biofuel processes utilizing separate lignin and carbohydrate processing of lignocellulose. Biofuels 7: 31–54.
[21]	Trop P, Anicic B, Goricanec D (2014) Production of methanol from a mixture of torreﬁed biomass and coal. Energy 77: 125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.045
[22]	Holmgren KM, Berntsson T, Andersson E, et al. (2012) System aspects of biomass gasiﬁcation with methanol synthesis-process concepts and energy analysis. Energy 45: 817–828. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.009
[23]	Holmgren KM, Andersson E, Berntsson T, et al. (2014) Gasiﬁcation-based methanol production from biomass in industrial clusters: Characterisation of energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy 69: 622–637. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.058
[24]	Andersson J, Lundgren J, Marklund M (2014) Methanol production via pressurized entrained ﬂow biomass gasiﬁcation-Techno-economic comparison of integrated vs. stand-alone production. Biomass Bioenerg 64: 256–268. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.063
[25]	Ortiz FJG, Serrera A, Galera S, et al. (2013) Methanol synthesis from syngas obtained by supercritical water reforming of glycerol. Fuel 105: 739–751. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.073
[26]	Bludowsky T, Agar DW (2009) Thermally integrated bio-syngas-production for bioreﬁneries. Chem Eng Res Des 87: 1328–1339. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2009.03.012
[27]	Boretti A (2013) Renewable hydrogen to recycle CO₂ to methanol. Int J Hydrogen Energ 38: 1806–1812. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.11.097
[28]	Trudewind CA, Schreiber A, Haumann D (2014) Photocatalytic methanol and methane production using captured CO₂ from coal-ﬁred power plants. Part I-a Life Cycle Assessment. J Clean Prod 70: 27–37.
[29]	Bai Z, Liu Q, Lei J, et al. (2015)>A polygeneration system for the methanol production and the power generation with the solar-biomass thermal gasiﬁcation. Energ Convers Manage 102: 190–201.
[30]	Bertau H, Offermanns H, Plass L, et al. (2014) Methanol: The Basic Chemical and Energy Feedstock of the Future. Heidelberg: Springer.
[31]	ISO (2006a) Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006. ISO/IEC.
[32]	ISO (2006b) Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044:2006. ISO/IEC.
[33]	Cherubini F, Jungmeier G (2010) LCA of a bioreﬁnery concept producing bio-ethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15: 53–66. doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0124-2
[34]	Kajaste R (2014) Chemicals from biomass-managing greenhouse gas emissions in biorefinery production chains-a review. J Clean Prod 75: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.070
[35]	Matzen M, Alhajji M, Demirel Y (2015) Chemical storage of wind energy by renewable methanol production: Feasibility analysis using a multi-criteria decision matrix. Energy 93: 343–353. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.043
[36]	Minutillo A, Perna A (2009) A novel approach for treatment of CO₂ from fossil ﬁred power plants, Part A: The integrated systems ITRPP. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34: 4014–4020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.02.069
[37]	Barkley ZR, Lauvaux T, Davis KJ, et al. (2017) Quantifying methane emissions from natural gas production in north-eastern Pennsylvania. Atmos Chem Phys 17: 13941–13966. doi: 10.5194/acp-17-13941-2017
[38]	Moro A, Lonza L (2017) Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles. Transport Res D-Tr E 64: 5–14.
[39]	Moretti C, Moro A, Edwards R, et al. (2017) Analysis of standard and innovative methods for allocating upstream and refinery GHG emissions to oil products. Appl Energy 206: 372–381. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.183
[40]	Zhang C, Jun KW, Gao R, et al. (2017) Carbon dioxide utilization in a gas-to-methanol process combined with CO₂/Steam-mixed reforming: Techno-economic analysis. Fuel 190: 303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.11.008
[41]	Di X, Liping L, Weifeng S, et al. (2017) Life cycle sustainability assessment of chemical processes: A vector based three-dimensional algorithm coupled with AHP. Ind Eng Chem Res 56: 11216–11227. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b02041
[42]	Van-Dal ÉS, Bouallou C (2013) Design and simulation of a methanol production plant from CO2 hydrogenation. J Clean Prod 57: 38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.008
[43]	Dumont MN, von der Assen N, Sternberg A, et al. (2012) Assessing the environmental potential of carbon dioxide utilization: A graphical targeting approach. Comput Aided Chem Eng 31: 1407–1411. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-59506-5.50112-7
[44]	Yu Y, Jing L, Weifeng S, et al. (2018) High-efficiency utilization of CO₂ in the methanol production by a novel parallel-series system combining steam and dry methane reforming. Energy 158: 820–829. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.061

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)