Search

Both e-methanol and hybrid methanol production can balance the energy systems storing variable wind and solar power and reduce emissions by replacing fossil methanol production. It is expected that hybrid methanol production using additional hydrogen from water electrolysis supplemented with purified product gas from biomass gasification will increase methanol yield and result in lower production costs compared to e-methanol, particularly when using power sources that are not only available all the time during the year. In this article hybrid methanol production with varying hydrogen input from the water electrolysis, e-methanol and biomass gasification-based methanol are evaluated from a techno-economic point of view as a function of key variables. Material and energy balances are estimated using a simulation model in IPSEpro. A key finding is the effect of the hydrogen input on the efficiency and cost of the hybrid process. Converting CO 2 will increase product yield by 101% and only CO by 38.1% compared to biomass-to-methanol production. Additionally, the results show better economics for hybrid methanol production compared to e-methanol >10–12 €/MWh electricity prices at 100 kt methanol production scale and <30–35 €/MWh electricity prices better economics than biomass to methanol with a biomass input of 70 MW. • The hybrid process studied utilised only CO or both CO and CO2. • Compared to biomass to methanol case the methanol yield increased 38–101%. • Compared to biomass to methanol case the carbon yield increased from 38.1% to 89.9%. • The production could use a flexible amount of electricity balancing energy systems. • A production cost of 460 €/ton was estimated for 100 kt annual methanol production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study evaluates a sugarcane biorefinery producing ethanol through juice fermentation and methanol via gasification of sugarcane lignocellulosic residues and liquid fuel synthesis. Two technologies of gasification named entrained flow and circulating fluidized bed are compared. Flowsheet modeling and thermo-economic analysis methods are applied, followed by a multi-objective optimization based on a genetic algorithm. The optimum Ethanol–Methanol biorefinery design options are compared with other previously studied sugarcane biorefineries. The results show that the biorefinery's energy efficiency increases significantly with the integration of a methanol production plant in a conventional ethanol distillery. The configuration using an entrained flow gasifier presents lower conversion efficiency than the one using a circulating fluidized bed gasifier. However, for the entrained flow gasifier configuration, the size of the methanol production process could be bigger since more heat is available for the ethanol process favouring the integration with the ethanol plant. Higher energy efficiency due to increase of methanol production leads to a higher total investment for both gasification technologies. The cost analysis shows that the calculated methanol production cost is 30% higher than its current market price. Environmental incentives for biofuels could change this scenario but are not in the scope of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methanol is an important chemical product with wide application. Due to the high pollutant emission of coal-to-methanol route, feeding mixed raw material of biomass and coal is seen as a promising measure of improvement. More than just focusing on co-gasification unit, this study performs a full process simulation from co-gasification to methanol and cogeneration, aiming at revealing the impact of biomass on process operation and optimizing the key operating parameters. The simulation results imply that coal and biomass co-gasification can improve the utilization of raw materials with more effective gas produced. As an example, the process based on the co-gasification of bituminous coal and straw is specially studied and telling the best operating situation of the whole process. The gasification agent and the critical effects of crude syngas split ratio (SR) and unreacted gas recycle ratio (CR) on the net methanol yield are fully discussed to gain insight into the process. The simulation results show that when the ratio of biomass to coal is 1:1, gasification agent is water steam, SR = 0.36, CR = 0.8, the net methanol production can reach a maximum of 7022.32 kg/h, 241.51% higher than that of merely using coal, producing 37.68% less CO 2 than merely using coal. • Full simulation of biomass and coal to methanol and cogeneration is performed. • Effects of factors on syngas components and net methanol yield are analyzed. • Side reactions are considered in methanol synthesis process. • Combined heat and power process is integrated with production process. • CO 2 emission reduces by 37.68% in co-gasification to methanol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study evaluates the potential for reducing life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of biomass gasification-based methanol production systems based on energy balances. Configurations which are process integrated with a chemical cluster have been compared to stand-alone units, i.e. units with no connection to any other industry but with the possibility to district heating connection. Two different uses of methanol are considered: the use as a vehicle fuel and the use for production of olefins via the methanol-to-olefins process. An added value of the integration can be the availability of excess hydrogen. For the studied case, the methanol production could be increased by 10% by using excess hydrogen from the cluster. The results show that the integrated systems have greater potential to reduce GHG emissions than the stand-alone systems. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the references for electricity production and district heating production technology have important impacts on the outcomes. Using excess heat for district heating was found to have positive or negative impacts on GHG emissions depending on what heat production technologies it replaces. The investigated olefins production systems resulted in GHG emissions reductions that were similar in magnitude to those of the investigated biofuel production systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Thermochemical conversion of biomass is a promising option to produce energy-dense liquid biofuels, aiming to phase out fossil fuels from the transportation sector. Integration of renewable electricity boosts biofuel yield and carbon conversion from the scarce biomass resource, creating an indirect electrification of the transportation sector. Coupling biomass gasification and solid oxide cells (SOC), able to run in both electrolysis and fuel cell mode, constitutes the framework for flexible biofuel production. This paper compares the performance of five novel plant configurations for flexible biomass conversion to methanol and power. The plant performance is evaluated at five different operation modes: high production of methanol at low/intermediate electricity prices, co-production of electricity and methanol at high prices, and production of electricity without methanol co-production at price peaks. A TwoStage gasifier, a bubbling fluidized bed and an entrained flow gasifier are chosen as gasification technologies. The systems are thermodynamically modeled, and analyzed in terms of efficiency and carbon conversion. The highest efficiencies are achieved with the systems based on TwoStage Electro-gasifier (71%) and entrained flow gasification with pyrolysis as fuel pre-treatment (72%). The flexibility achieved by this technology combination enables high capacity factors, important for an accelerated commercialization of thermochemical biomass conversion. • Flexible methanol production units able to operate at different electricity prices. • Biomass gasification platforms coupled with solid oxide cells to produce methanol. • Highest input-output efficiency of 72% using entrained flow biomass gasification. • Highest carbon conversion of 97% using entrained flow biomass gasification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]