perspective on methanol as a transportation fuel

PERSPECTIVE ON METHANOL AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL

Bio4Energy Researchers´ Meeting Skellefteå 15 November, 2017 Ingvar Landälv

15 November 2017 11

15 Nov. 2017 Ingvar Landälv 2

Key Conversion pathways for renewable Methanol

Process step Gasification Shift Methanol synthesis

TOTAL

Conversion from / to Biomass to H2+CO

Non-shifted to shifted syngas

Syngas to methanol product

Biomass to methanol

Conversion route

Biomass gasification, Case A 0.7-0.8 0.96-0.97 0.79-0.8 0.53-0.62

BLG to Methanol, Case B (Biomass added to compensate)

* 0.65-0.7

Biomass to PO combined with BLG, Case C

** 0.49-0.6

* Conversion of BL to syngas and further on to methanol does not make sense (as for biomass gasification) as the overall calculation as explained in the subchapter about BLGMF concepts relates to the biomass addition to the system to compensate for withdrawal of BL normally being fired in a recovery boiler. See ref. ** When PO is added to a BLGMF system PO energy is converted to methanol with about 70% energy efficiency as described under Case C. Production efficiency of PO from biomass is multiplied with this efficiency to get the TOTAL value.


Methanol Production Potential - Sweden

20 40 60 80 100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Energy Conversion

efficiency

Biomass feedstock

(TWh)

Methanol Production (TWh)

Low/high data for Swedish biomass potential

Fuel concepts utilizing sources of low cost hydrogen


Hydrogen can efficiently be fed to the syngas conditioning and purification section of a gasification to fuels plant and accomplish 50-60% higher fuel production from the same amount of biomass feedstock

Adding external Hydrogen to a syngas train


BEFORE AFTER

+ 55 %

Production Cost of renewable methanol


Invest-ment

Capital Feedstock O&M

20y/

10%

15y/

10%

10y/

10% Base +25%

Power

60 EUR/ MWh

Power

70 EUR/ MWh

Other O&M

Base (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (3)

Base

+20%

(4) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (5) (6) (6) (6) (6)

Feedstock base: 21 EUR/MWh

Typical production Cost level,

60-75 EUR/MWh

Methanol Use in Engines (some examples)


Engine Comment

Low methanol blend in gasoline 3% (v) allowed in European Gasoline

High methanol blend in gasoline First of all a Chinese experience but also corresponding concept on ethanol in Brazil

GEM Gasoline/Ethanol/Methanol fuel blends E85 = M56 and GEM mixes “in between”.

Marine Applications Typically 95% methanol with an ignitor operated in diesel mode

“MD95” Scania’s well proven ED95 can be adjusted to operate on methanol as MD95

PPC, Partial Premix Combustion Development going on at Lund University and elsewhere. M100 is a prime fuel candidate

Methanol in Fuel Cells Prevailing concept in 1980s/1990s now “reinvented” by e.g. Nissan (on board reforming of alcohol to hydrogen).

1980 1990 2000 2010

Periods of High Crude Oil Prices

Periods when methanol is looked at as an alternative to crude oil products

Increased concern regarding the GHG issue

Renewable fuel market development

The long term perspective – 1 The 1970/80s and the oil crises


Oil majors went for methanol when the world was hit by oil crises in the 1970s and 1980s


Sweden, Norway Germany, USA and others run large test fleets on M15, M85 and M100 for many years

METHANOL FROM NATURAL GAS When capital is payed back, which is done in 4-5 years, only cash cost remains. This is in the order of 13-23 EUR/MWh for NG plants with current typical gas prices.


Natural Gas price USD/ton USD/MWh EUR/MWh

4 USD/MMBtu

(12.2 EUR/MWh)

Cash Cost 140 25 23

Capital Cost 238 43 38

TOTAL 378 68 61

2 USD/MMBtu

(6.1 EUR/MWh)

Cash Cost 82 15 13

Capital Cost 238 43 38

TOTAL 320 58 51

Production Cost of various advanced biofuels (from “Cost of Biofuels”, Subgroup Advanced Biofuels)


Incl. Capital @ 5 years / 15%

Cask costs @ NG price of 2-4 USD/MMBtu

Methanol from Natural Gas

Photo from space showing flaring of various hydrocarbons (SkyTruth, 2016)


See: https://viirs.skytruth.org/apps/heatmap/flaringmap.html#lat=29.43243&lon=15.26825&zoom=3&offset=15

http://www.compactgtl.com/about/resources/

https://viirs.skytruth.org/apps/heatmap/flaringmap.htmllat=29.43243&lon=15.26825&zoom=3&offset=15

1980 1990 2000 2010





The long term perspective – 2 The 1990s and introduction of biofuels


… but when the renewables fuel market started to evolve in the 1990s methanol was “banned”. It now was corrosive and toxic.

Oil majors went for methanol at the oil crises in the 1970s and 1980s …

Safety: Methanol as compared to gasoline with respect to fire risk

Sources: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1994) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (Machiele, 1990)

“Projections indicate that casualties would drop dramatically if methanol were substituted for gasoline as the country’s primary automotive fuel.” • Lower volatility of methanol compared to gasoline • Higher flammability requirement (four times higher

concentration of methanol vapor needed to ignite compared to gasoline)

• Lower vapour density of methanol avoids dens gas clouds along the ground

• Lower heat release rate (an eighth compared to gasoline)


Methanol is approved as bunker fuel by Lloyds. It has piggybacked on corresponding work done for LNG.

(It is less complicated. It is e.g. OK to store methanol in space formed by double bottom construction of the vessel)


1980 1990 2000 2010





The long term perspective – 3 Resent developments in principle cost driven


1. Marine sector goes for Methanol as bunker fuel 2. China selects methanol as fuel when converting its domestic coal to a fuel

Methanol Standards in China


REFLECTION: Most European auto makers have their largest market in China. How do their cars manage the methanol content in Chinese gasoline?

Methanol as bunker fuel and in various other applications


1. Marine Diesel Application 2. M56 in a SAAB BioPower E85 car 3. M100 in speedway motor cycle 4. M95-M100 in Pilot Boat (different engines under test)

Marine engine applications A. MAN Turbo and Diesel B. Wärtsilä

1

2 3

4

A

B

Some Conclusions • Methanol is toxic and corrosive but is overall not more challenging to use

as an automotive fuel than other fuel alternatives. From many aspects it is simpler.

• Storage and handling of methanol is well known • BioMethanol has a high production potential • BioMethanol has comparably low production cost • Conversion efficiency form feedstock to BioMethanol is comparably high • Methanol is one of the most efficient fuels for IC-engines and Fuel Cell

applications


Work has been financed through contributions from • f3, The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transport Fuels • LTU, Luleå University of Technology

Presentation complied from: METHANOL AS A RENEWABLE FUEL – A KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS http://www.f3centre.se/sites/default/files/f3_2015-08_landalv_final_170918_0.pdf

http://www.f3centre.se/sites/default/files/f3_2015-08_landalv_final_170918_0.pdf

perspective on methanol as a transportation fuel

Documents