Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Benefits of hybrid production of e-methanol in connection with

biomass gasification
Eemeli Anetjärvi a, Esa Vakkilainen a, Kristian Melin b, *
a
LUT School of Energy Systems, LUT- University Lappeenranta Campus, Lappeenranta, Finland
b
LUT School of Engineering Science LUT- University, Lahti Campus, Lahti, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Henrik Lund 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 pro­
Keywords: duction using additional hydrogen from water electrolysis supplemented with purified product gas from biomass
Hybrid methanol gasification will increase methanol yield and result in lower production costs compared to e-methanol, partic­
Biomass gasification
ularly when using power sources that are not only available all the time during the year. In this article hybrid
Power-to-MeOH
methanol production with varying hydrogen input from the water electrolysis, e-methanol and biomass
E-Methanol
Biomass-to-methanol gasification-based methanol are evaluated from a techno-economic point of view as a function of key variables.
Synthetic fuels Material and energy balances are estimated using a simulation model in IPSEpro. A key finding is the effect of the
IPSEpro hydrogen input on the efficiency and cost of the hybrid process. Converting CO2 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.

1. Introduction production is therefore the distribution and availability of biomasses

Methanol is among the most promising commodity and fuel products
that could be produced from biomass or electricity in the future. It is
currently produced in large volumes from fossil feedstock, approx. 110
Mt in 2020 and 80% of methanol was used in the chemical industry and
20% elsewhere, e.g., in fuel production. Methanol production in the
world is expected to rise to 500 Mt by 2050 [1].
Limiting climate change and achieving the goal of carbon neutrality
requires using renewable feedstocks such as renewable methanol pro­
duction. It can be produced via the gasification/reforming of biomass
and e-methanol from renewable power via the power-to-methanol
(P2MeOH) process [2,3].
In biomass gasification-based methanol production, a significant
amount of carbon in biomass is lost as CO2. Gasifier product gas contains
CO2 and even more, CO2 is produced when carbon monoxide is con­
verted into hydrogen by the WGS reaction. In addition, the high capital
investment of gasification-based biofuel production plants requires
large-scale production plants which need a huge amount of feedstock.
One issue with biomass gasification-based renewable methanol
[3]. Typically gasification-based methanol production however is not
flexible and does not help the energy system to store renewable power
into products.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured and hydrogen can be pro­
duced by water electrolysis to produce e-methanol, however, a high
concentration point source such as large-scale biomass combustion at a
CO2-producing facility is typically needed for large-scale methanol
production. usually requires [2]. Reducing GHG emissions compared to
fossil methanol production using e-methanol production requires elec­
tricity with a sufficiently low carbon footprint (not available from the
electricity grid in all countries), preferably available all the time during
the whole year. Wind or solar power needs typically to be utilised at
times of high production and less demand but it is typically only avail­
able at limited times of the year, increasing production costs. Because it
will significantly increase the capital charge cost of the electrolyser,
increasing the production cost of methanol.
A bigger electrolyser can be used running at different capacities
while hydrogen and/or CO2 can be stored so that the downstream pro­
duction plant can run at a high load throughout the year. Large-scale

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Kristian.Melin@lut.fi (K. Melin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127202
Received 30 June 2022; Received in revised form 8 March 2023; Accepted 11 March 2023
Available online 10 April 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E. Anetjärvi et al.
storage of hydrogen is however also not so attractive due to high cost
and if compression to high pressure or liquefaction of hydrogen is
required it will significantly reduce the efficiency of production due to
high electricity consumption. If biomass is available hybrid methanol
using both biomass and electricity is an attractive option. It can both
store intermittent renewable power by using a varying share of biomass
and power as input for methanol production and reduce the need for
biomass input.
The main focus of this article is studying the hybrid production of e-
methanol in connection with biomass gasification (see Fig. 1). Hybrid
methanol production utilizes both water electrolysis and biomass gasi­
fication to produce product gas (PG) consisting mostly of hydrogen (H2),
carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide. This product gas is catalyt­
ically synthesized to renewable methanol in a catalytic synthesis reactor
[2,3].
In this article different levels of hydrogen, supplementation is stud­
ied using both CO and CO2 or only CO for methanol production, and
their benefits are evaluated. Converting both CO and CO2 into methanol
requires more hydrogen but leads to a higher yield of methanol and
allows improved utilization of carbon in biomass to methanol (approx.
90–100%) [2–4]. This reduces the need for feedstock; consequently
availability of sustainable biomass becomes a less crucial issue.
1.2. Previous research
Power-to-MeOH concept and gasification of biomass for producing
power- or biomass-to-methanol have been studied individually [2–7,
41]. Both concepts have been found viable for renewable methanol
production and subsequently, industrial plants are being constructed,
engineered, and planned [1,2]. To gain insights into these processes
several modelling studies were conducted with e.g. ASPEN to evaluate
different feasible options or combinations [8–11].
There have been few detailed reviews on hybrid methanol produc­
tion and only a few projects are being planned [2,3].
Hybrid production of methanol also in flexible operation has been
previously modelled [4,12–16] [42,43], including co-gasification of
biomass and manure [44], for different gasifiers [45] sorption-enhanced
gasification [46]. Furthermore, techno-economical feasibility of
different hybrid methanol concept of the hybrid methanol process
without CO2 capture to Biomass-based and electrochemical methanol
production [17]. In addition, using green hydrogen CO2 from coal to
methanol production was converted into methanol [47]. Nevertheless, a
Fig. 1. Simplified process description of hybrid bio gasification – e-methanol plant.
2
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
detail analysis of the techno-economical performance as function of key
variables with different levels of hydrogen supplementation to the
process and with different annual operation times of the electrolyser, has
not been done to the Author’s knowledge.
2. Materials and methods
First, hybrid production processes with and without CO2 utilization
were reviewed including different possibilities for hydrogen production,
gasification of biomass and synthesising options for methanol produc­
tion with supporting processes.
Data from the literature review was used as input for the process
models in IPSEpro and its advanced powerplant library. Additional
component models were built using MDK (Model Development Kit)
[18]. The goal of process modelling was to evaluate the benefits of
hybrid methanol production.
2.1. Modelled process cases
The methanol production cases studied consist of:
Hybrid methanol production with CO2 utilization (PBtMeOHa) and
without CO2 utilization (PBtMeOHb):
• Alkaline electrolyser (AEL) + Fluidized bed gasification and product
gas cleaning + Methanol synthesis loop + Air Supply Unit (ASU) if
needed.
E-methanol (PtMeOH):
• AEL + Outside CO2 + Methanol synthesis loop
Biomass-to-methanol (BtMeOH):
• Fluidized bed gasification and product gas cleaning + Water Gas
Shift (WGS) reactor + Methanol synthesis loop + ASU
All cases involve:
• 7,500 annual operating hours
• H2 recovery from purge with pressure swing absorption (PSA).
• Waste gas (WG) combustion
• District heat (DH) heat limit of 90 ◦ C
E. Anetjärvi et al.
• Process parameters kept constant between cases
The process models, all modelling principles, assumed operating
values and their references are presented in detail in the supplementary
material.
2.1.1. Alkaline electrolysis and conditioning
Electrolysis is the main hydrogen source for e-methanol and hybrid-
methanol production where (H2O) is split into oxygen (O2) and
hydrogen with electricity according to eq. 1
1
H2 O→H2 + O2 (1)
2
Electrolysis with renewable electricity can be used to produce
renewable hydrogen [3,19]. Water electrolysis accounts currently for
approx. 4% of the world’s total hydrogen production and most of the
production is made from fossil fuels such as natural gas (48%), oil
(30%), and coal (18%) [20].
Alkaline Electrolysis (AEL), Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM)
electrolysis and Solid oxide electrolyser cells (SOECS) electrolysis have
been the key technologies suggested for hydrogen production [5,
19–25]. Among these three, Alkaline and PEM electrolyser technologies
are in the commercial stage and SOECS is still in development [22]. Of
the viable technologies, AEL was selected for this study. When waste
hydrogen is available, using it is a viable option and in the future, SOEC
can become a favourable option [22,26].
The AEL produces all the hydrogen in the P2MeOH case and a sig­
nificant part of it in the hybrid cases. The oxygen produced as a by-
product by the AEL was utilised in gasification and reforming while
the excess portion was sold. A separate model for the AEL process was
utilised in this study.
The alkaline electrolyser works at an operating temperature of 90 ◦ C
and a pressure of 4 bars. Water is fed to the electrolyser at 25 ◦ C. The
cooling water leaves the electrolyser at a temperature of 75 ◦ C and is
further heated with process heat to be utilised in DH. With these oper­
ating parameters, the electrolyser efficiency is 70.7% based on the lower
heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.
Depending on the gasification technique or medium used, the H2, CO
(and CO2) ratio can be suboptimal and more hydrogen is required.
Therefore, adjustment of the gas H2/CO ratio i.e. PG conditioning is
needed. There are two main possibilities for this: The traditional way of
conditioning is to use a WGS reactor, where a portion of CO is turned
into H2 and CO2 with steam and in presence of a catalyst (see eq. (4)) for
optimal H2/CO ratio. In a hybrid plant, the amount of H2 required for
utilizing only CO or both CO and CO2 is added to the PG. The PG is
heated, cooled and pressurized. Tars and methane are reformed, which
offers the benefit of cleaning the PG as well [2,3,7].
In the BtMeOH case, no additional hydrogen is provided, so the
hydrogen stoichiometry in the PG is adjusted with a WGS reactor. In this
case, the WGS reactor is situated after reforming and PG cooling. Before
the reactor, steam is injected into the stream to achieve a steam-to-CO
ratio of 1.8 at the inlet. The reactor inlet temperature is 200 ◦ C.
Furthermore, the reactor outlet temperature is adjusted to 405 ◦ C [4].
2.1.2. Gasification and product gas cleaning
The carbon source in BtMeOH and PBtMeOH cases is biomass.
Gasification refers to the thermal conversion of solid or liquid fuels e.g.,
biomass to desirable and useable gases, CO, H2, CO2, H2O, nitrogen (N2),
O2, methane (CH4), higher order hydrocarbons (CnHm), ash and tar. The
contents of the PG depend on the gasification medium, gasification
temperature, the gasifier type, and the fuel used.
There are three kinds of medium used: Air, oxygen, and/or steam. In
a directly heated/fired gasifier, an under-stochiometric amount is fed so
that only partial combustion is achieved [3,27]. The gasifier can be
indirectly heated [7].
For large-scale biomass gasification, the preferred types are fluidized
3
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
bed gasifiers because they can accept fuels of varying moisture and
quality. They are already used in the industry for gasification-for
methanol production. Other types such as entrained flow gasifiers can
be used for pulverized biofuels. The fuel’s moisture affects the gasifi­
cation performance, so the biomass is typically dried before gasification.
To produce high heating value PG, biomass is gasified with oxygen and/
or steam [3,27]. In some of the processes also hydrogen is supplemented
from another source than biomass, as in hybrid methanol production
and the Quebec Enerkem plant hydrogen will be supplied from an 87
MW electrolyser [2].
Using only oxygen as a medium can also result in overheating, which
damages the gasifier refractory [28]. Therefore, steam is typically added
to the oxygen [7]. Oxygen production by membranes or oxygen sepa­
ration from the air can be expensive while hybrid methanol production
benefits from the by-product oxygen from electrolysis [2].
PG impurities are to be removed to reach a high purity needed for
catalytic methanol synthesis [2,27] (see Table 1) to prevent catalyst
poisoning in methanol synthesis [6].
Post-cleaning can be done in high temperatures and/or low tem­
perature (below 250 ◦ C) applications. In the low-temperature water
and/or solvents are used to clean the PG. In AGR (Acid Gas Removal), for
H2S only or together with CO2, solvents like MEA (Monoethanolamide),
Selexol or Rectisol can be used to achieve high standards for the removal
[3,4,7]. Hot gas cleaning (above 400 ◦ C) uses catalysts and
high-temperature ceramic filters to clean the PG [3,27].
The gasification system in the BtMeOH and PBtMeOH cases consists
of a biomass dryer before product gas cleaning. The biomass is assumed
to be woody biomass [29] and its properties are presented in the sup­
plementary material.
The biomass dryer uses steam as the heat medium. The steam goes to
the dryer at 94 ◦ C and leaves at 70 ◦ C. The biomass is dried from 20% to
5% moisture. The dried fuel leaves the dryer at a temperature of 60 ◦ C.
The specific heat and electricity usage is set to 1300 kWh/tevap and 32
kWh/tdry, fuel [4,14]
After drying, fluidized bed gasification is done with a 1:1 ratio of
oxygen and steam (at 215 ◦ C) at a pressure of 4 bars [4,14].
The gasifier has a 98% conversion efficiency from biomass to gas and
a heat loss of 0.8% [4]. Gasifiers produce PG that is not in equilibrium;
however, after catalytic reforming and filtration, the gas composition
can be assumed to be in equilibrium and the gasification model assumes
PG to be in equilibrium (see Table 2) representing the fluidized bed
gasifier, filter, and the catalytic reformer. The gasifier model outlet
temperature is set to 950 ◦ C and the pressure drop to 0.6 bars [4].
In the PBtMeOHa case, the oxygen produced from electrolysis is fed
to the gasifier. Whereas in the BtMeOH case, all the oxygen is provided
by ASU and its electricity consumption is 0.37 kWh/kg,O2 [30].
Consequently, in the PBtMeOHb case, additional oxygen is needed,
which is provided by ASU.
The PG cleaning in these cases is done in two stages. In the first stage,
waters scrubbing is employed for the removal of the impurities such as
ammonia and in the second stage, AGR is used for H2S and/or CO2
removal.
The PG coming from reforming in hybrid and BtMeOH cases is cooled
Table 1
Product gas purity needs for methanol synthesis [27].
Compound Methanol synthesis process
Sulphur [ppmv] <1
Halides [ppmv]
≤0.1
HCN [ppmv] ≤0.1
NH3 [ppmv] ≤0.1
Tar [mg/Nm3] <1
The PG cleaning can be done using first pre-cleaning and after gasi­
fication post-cleaning. In the pre-cleaning e.g., the gasifier’s fuel-
medium ratio and operating temperature are optimized and addi­
tives can be added to the fuel/bed to minimize impurities [27].
E. Anetjärvi et al.
Table 2
Gasifier model outlet PG composition.
Component Amount [vol%]
CO 36.4
CO2 20.9
H2 42.5
CH4 1.2E-02
N2 0.1
H2S 4.1E-02
Total 100
to 200 ◦ C before two-stage water scrubbing. In the water scrubber, the
liquid outlet temperatures are the following: 60 ◦ C in the 1st stage and
30 ◦ C in the 2nd stage. The PG leaves the water scrubber at 45 ◦ C [4],
followed by pressurisation to 21 bar and aftercooling to 60 ◦ C. In the
PBtMeOHa case only H2S is removed, but in the BtMeOH and PBtMeOHb
cases both H2S (<1 ppm %) and CO2 (≤2.0 mol%) are removed. Rectisol
(cold methanol) is employed as an absorption medium and the specific
electricity use is 7600 kJ/kmolremoved, including the electricity needed
for low-temperature cooling [4].
2.1.3. Methanol synthesis loop
Methanol can be synthesized from the PG consisting of H2 and CO2
and/or CO. In synthesis three main reversible chemical reactions take
place:
/ the PtMeOH case, more gases are combusted, due to the need to pre-heat
CO2 + 3H2 ⇌CH3 OH + H2 O, ΔHr,298 K,1 atm = − 49, 4 kJ mol (2)
/ surized and recycled to the reactor feed but a small part (purge stream) is
CO + 2H2 ⇌CH3 OH, ΔHr,298 K,1 atm = − 90, 5 kJ mol
/ specific electric power consumption of 20 kWh/kgH2,recovered [10,33].
CO + H2 O⇌CO2 + H2 , ΔHr,298 K,1 atm = − 41, 1 kJ mol
Reaction eq. (2) CO2 hydrogenation, Reaction eq. (3) CO hydroge­
nation and eq. (4) Water Gas Shift (WGS) reaction. These reactions are
exothermic in nature. reactions eqs. (2) and (3) favour high pressures
and low temperatures. Catalysts are used to enhance reaction kinetics
[5,6,10].
Production of methanol from CO has been observed to happen
mainly through WGS-reaction and hydrogenation of CO2. In commercial
reactors, CO is generally utilised to produce methanol from fossil and
renewable feedstock sources and a major part of CO2 is removed and
only approx. 4%-vol CO2 remains is the fed to methanol synthesis [2,4].
Recently it has also become possible to synthesize methanol from
CO2 directly, used in the P-to-MeOH processes [2,4]. Nowadays both CO
and CO2 methanol synthesis are effective processes and have been
commercially proven [2].
PG produced from biomass gasification contains both CO and CO2.
Catalysts and reactors have been developed for combined CO2 and CO
conversion, which have also high conversion rates of methanol [2]. E.g.,
the developed liquid-phase slurry reactors, that are not affected by a
mixture of CO and CO2 [7]. Separate synthesis of CO and CO2 in hybrid
plants is also possible if CO and CO2 separation from each other is a
feasible option [2,3,32].
In the stream containing both CO and CO2, the mole relation between
H2, CO and CO2 is given by the following eq. (5):
nH2 − nCO2
SN =
nCO + nCO2
Where SN is the stochiometric number needed for the reaction, nH2 , nCO
subscription the H2, CO and CO2 mole amounts, respectively. This comes
from hydrogen needed in reactions to methanol. The optimum value for
the SN is 2. Another parameter different in each case concerning the
methanol reactor feed is the COR influencing the performance of
methanol synthesis as eq. (6):
nCO2
COR =
nCO + nCO2
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
It compares the CO and CO2 molar amounts, COR = 1, for 100% CO2
and COR = 0 for 100% CO. Heat release from the exothermic synthesis
reaction, methanol per pass yield and production of unwanted side-
products, excluding water is higher for low COR. On the opposite
higher COR increases water production, and H2 consumption and de­
creases methanol yield per pass, increasing the need for gas recircula­
tion. Typically, there is a distillation unit after the reactor separates
water and other dissolved impurities from methanol [4,6,31,32].
Methanol synthesis reactors typically operate in the range of approx.
200–300 ◦ C and in the pressure range of approx. 50–100 bar in
low-temperature operations [4,6,27].
In all the cases, after cleaning and conditioning, the cleaned PG (H2
and CO2 in PtMeOH case) is heated, pressurized, and fed to a single
isothermal methanol synthesis reactor at 50 bar and isothermal tem­
perature of 230 ◦ C. A stoichiometric ratio of 2 is used [32]. Heat is
liberated in the reactions and the reactor outlet is recovered at 215 ◦ C.
Subsequently, the methanol reactor outlet gas is fed and cooled to 60 ◦ C
and the condensed methanol and water are separated from the gas.
Next, the liquid product is fed to distillation separating methanol
from water, operated at 3.5 bars [14]. The heat used for the distillation
of methanol is obtained both from methanol synthesis, condensing of
products and waste gas combustion. Both the methanol distillate and the
water bottom product are cooled.
In all the cases except PtMeOH, 95% [4] of the unreacted gasses from
the gas-liquid separator are recirculated back to the reactor. Whereas in
the methanol reactor feed. The main part of unreacted gases are pres­
(3)
fed to the PSA unit to recycle 90% of the hydrogen back. The PSA has a
(4)
The non-recycled stream from PSA is sent to WG combustion, using
oxygen or air. The heat from combustion is recovered and utilised inside
the process.
In general heat integration and the utilization of waste heat, are
needed for high total process efficiency [7,14]. In this study excess heat
with a temperature above 90 ◦ C is utilised for DH. Auxiliary equipment
in cases consists of compressors, heat exchangers, mixers, and steam
injectors. They and heat integration are described more in supplemen­
tary material.
2.1.4. Process performance and economic parameters
Process performance parameters are calculated for the evaluation of
the cases. Methanol production efficiency ηMeOH is determined as eq. (7):
qm,MeOH LHVMeOH
ηMeOH = (7)
qm,biomass,wet LHVbiomass,wet + Pe,tot
where qm,MeOH and qm,biomass,wet are produced methanol and used wet
biomass mass flows, respectively, LHVMeOH and LHVbiomass,wet are the
methanol and wet biomass LHV, respectively, and Pe,tot is the total
electricity power usage of the process. DH production efficiency ηDH is
determined as eq. (8):
ηDH =
Q>90 C Heat
(8)
qm,biomass,wet LHVbiomass,wet + Pe,tot
(5) Where Q>90 C Heat is DH potential heat. The total efficiency of heat and
methanol production ηtot can be determined as eq. (9):
ηtot = ηMeOH + ηDH (9)
The carbon utilization to methanol ηcarbon , is determined as eq. (10):
ncarbon,MeOH
ηcarbon = (10)
ncarbon,biomass
Where ncarbon,MeOH is the carbon mole amount out in methanol and
(6) ncarbon,biomass subscriptionssubscriptions the carbon mole amount in the biomass
4
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

into the process.

The Total Capital Investment (TCI) of the plants and the Levelized
Cost of Production (LCOP) methanol were estimated for the evaluation
between cases. TCI is calculated with Total Plant Cost (TPC), which
consists of the sum of the individual overnight investment on main
process components construction, and installation and cost reservations.
The one installed component investment cost C is scaled to model size S
is determined as eq. (11):
( )k
S
C = C0 (11)
S0
Where C0 is the cost and S0 is the size of installed reference equip­
ment and k is the scaling factor. and the specific values are presented in
the supplementary material. In the calculation of TPC, additional cost Fig. 2. Production efficiencies (error estimate± 5%).
reservations are added to the sum of installed main equipment costs.
These are indirect costs, which cover engineering and fees, project
consistency costs and unscheduled equipment costs, covering the esti­
mate of the cost of unlisted auxiliary equipment. These are evaluated as
a fraction of the sum of installed equipment cost and TPC [4]. TCI is the
TPC plus the interest during construction. LCOP of methanol is deter­
mined as eq. (12):
F+E+C+O− R
LCOP = (12)
P

Where F is the annual cost of biomass, E is the annual cost of electricity,

O is the annual operating and maintenance costs and R is the revenue
from selling by-products like DH and oxygen generated in euros. C is the
annual capital charge calculated through the annuity method with
constant capital interest (10%) and constant payment amount (20 years
of operating life), [34]. P is annual amount of methanol produced in
Fig. 3. MeOH production per biomass/CO2 used in process modelling cases
MW, MWh, GJ, litres or tons. LCOP indicates the breakeven price of
(error estimate ± 5%).
methanol for each case with the economic parameters and values
assumed. Biomass price is assumed to be scaled by transport distance
and input power [11]. Initial inputs and outputs are presented in Fig. 6.
Total Capital Investments in 100 kt MeOH, error estimate±30%.
Table 3 and other economical parameters are presented in more
detail in the supplementary material.
To study the influence of the annual availability of the electricity
source LCOP is calculated for 100 kt annual methanol production as a
function of the annual operation time of the electrolyser. For the
PtMeOH case, neither CO2 nor hydrogen is stored and the entire process
is run at the same capacity as the electrolysis. On the opposite of the
hybrid cases, it is assumed that they can run in the hybrid mode when
the electrolyser is in use and similar to the BtMeOH case when the
electrolyser is not in use. Therefore, less overdesign of the process is
needed in other to reach 100 kt annual methanol production capacity for
the hybrid cases.

Fig. 4. MeOH production in 100 kt/a error estimate ±5%.

3. Results

Fig. 2 presents the production efficiency and Fig. 3 presents MeOH

production per biomass/CO2 used in all process modelling cases.
First, all the cases were evaluated for 100 kilotons of MeOH pro­
duction. Energy inputs and outputs results are shown in Fig. 4 and the
sum of installed equipment costs are presented in Fig. 5, TCI of cases in
Fig. 6 and initial LCOP estimations in Fig. 7. The impacts of changes in

Table 3
Values of initial inputs and outputs.
Inputs/Outputs Value Reference

Biomass [€/MWh] 16.06–16.71 [11]

Electricity [€/MWh] 50 [4]
District heat [€/MWh] 40 [4]
CO2 [€/t] 50 [2]
Oxygen [€/t] 85 [10]
Fig. 5. Sum of installed equipment costs, error estimate ±30%. error ±5%).

5
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Fig. 6. Total Capital Investments in 100 kt MeOH, error estimate ±30%.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity of LCOP on biomass price in 100 kt MeOH production cases.

Fig. 7. Initial cost, revenue and LCOP estimation in 100 kt, error estimate in
capital charge cost ±30%.
Fig. 10. Sensitivity of LCOP on CO2 price in 100 kt MeOH production cases.

electricity, biomass and CO2 price and production scale are illustrated in
Figs. 8–11.
Second, BtMeOH and hybrid cases were scaled to 70 MW biomass
input and the results are presented in Fig. 12, Figs. 13 and 14. In Fig. 16
LCOP as function of change in Total capital investment compared to the
base case is illustrated and in Fig. 17 the effect on LCOP of annual
operation hrs of the electrolysers is illustrated. In addition, more
detailed results are presented in the supplementary material.

3.1. Technical performance and methanol yield evaluation

The methanol production efficiency (see eq. (7)) of the hybrid cases
compared to the other cases appears promising; The best efficiency is
achieved for the PBtMeOHb case (61.7%), 2nd best the for BtMeOH case
(60.7%), whereas the PBtMeOHa case is 3rd and the last is PtMeOH case Fig. 11. Sensitivity of LCOP on production scale in 100 kt. MeOH produc­
(52.6%). The differences are explained by the differences in the COR and tion cases.
methanol per pass conversion. The per-pass conversion efficiency of CO-

Fig. 12. Energy usage and production in 70 MW of biomass usage cases (error
Fig. 8. Sensitivity of LCOP on electricity price in 100 kt MeOH produc­
estimate ±5%).
tion cases.

6
E. Anetjärvi et al.
Fig. 13. Total Capital Investments in 70 MW of biomass usage cases (error
estimate±30%).
Fig. 14. Initial Cost, Revenue and LCOP estimation of biomass usage cases
error estimate ±30% of capital charge).
rich gas is higher than for CO2. Also, in the PtMeOH case, more product
gas is combusted to pre-heat the methanol reactor feed lowering the
methanol production efficiency.
It is estimated that the used simulation model could predict the
carbon efficiency for the process with (±5%) accuracies due to inac­
curacies in the prediction of gasification and the methanol production
efficiencies differences between the cases except for the PtMEOH case
are rather insignificant. The electrolysis efficiency has an effect on the
relative conversion efficiency of biomass vs. CO2 into methanol.
On the other hand, when comparing marginal efficiencies (see
Table 13 in support material) for the 70 MW biomass input the effi­
ciencies differ more between the hybrid cases. In the case PBtMeOHb
case 27.9 MW more electricity is utilised in the process and 18.1 MW
more methanol is produced compared to the BtMEOh case. Approxi­
mately 0.65 MW of methanol/MW electricity is produced. The reason for
high efficiency compared to the BtMeOH case is that the produced
hydrogen replaces more inefficient hydrogen produced in the BtMeOH
case from CO by WGS. When increasing the hydrogen input from case
PBtMEOHb further to PBtMeOHa 54.1 MW of additional electricity is
used and methanol output increases by 29.9 MW. Approximately only
0.55 MW methanol/MW electric power is obtained. The marginal effi­
ciency is lower in this case because no WGS is needed for hydrogen
production, however, the efficiency is still higher than the methanol
production efficiency for the PtMeOH case because less gas is combusted
to pre-heat the methanol reactor feed.
The PBtMeOHa case is 2nd with a DH production efficiency of 26.3%
and the best efficiency is achieved by the PtMeOH case (32.3%). The 3rd
and 4th are PBtMeOHb (23.3%) and BtMeOH cases (19.0%).
The differences in the DH production efficiencies come from the heat
integrations and for the best PtMeOH case, all its excess heat can be
utilised in DH. Other cases produce lower-temperature waste heat in the
water scrubber and utilize some of its high-temperature heat.
The PBtMeOHa case is 1st in terms of overall efficiency (85.8%)
7
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
followed by the 2nd PBtMeOHb case (85.0%) and 3rd case PtMeOH case
(84.9%). Consequently, the BtMeOH case is last (79.7%). For the hybrid
cases, the low-temperature heat from the electrolyser was not utilised in
biomass drying which would increase the total efficiency for the hybrid
cases.
The PBtMeOHa case performs well in the utilization of carbon to
methanol (89.8%) followed by the 2nd case PtMeOH case (80.9%).
Whereas the PBtMeOHb case is 3rd (61.5%) and the BtMeOH case is the
last (44.6%).
The PBtMeOHa has the highest carbon utilization because enough
hydrogen is produced to convert not only CO but also CO2 into methanol
The PtMeOH case has lower carbon utilization due to the combustion of
more product gas to pre-heat the methanol reactor feed.
The PBtMeOHb and BtMeOH case has the lowest carbon utilization
due to not utilizing the CO2 produced from the gasification but removing
it from the process in AGR. PBtMeOHb has higher carbon utilization
than the BtMeOH case because no CO is converted into CO2, which is
removed from the process. Additionally with a lower purged and com­
busted gas amount, e.g. employing electrical heating even higher carbon
efficiencies could be reached for all cases.
The carbon utilization leads to different biogenic CO2 emissions for
the cases presented in the supplementary material. Even for biogenic
emissions, fewer emissions are a benefit concerning climate change,
particularly for short-term time perspective for GHG emission re­
ductions. In 100 ktons of MeOH production cases, the biogenic CO2
emissions are PBtMeOHa (approx. 12 ktons/y), PBtMeOHb (approx 59
ktons/y), PtMeOH (approx 32 ktons/y.) and BtMeOH (approx. 164
ktons/y). However, it should be noted that PtMeOH can use more CO2
from an existing plant as a raw material than what is emitted so it will
result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Of the hybrid cases for the PBtMeOHa case the methanol yield per
biomass increases most approx. 101% compared to the BtMeOH case.
With PBtMeOHb the yield increased only by 38.1% compared to the
BtMeOH case. The yield increase from PBtMEOHb to PBTMeOHa is
approx. 46%.
3.2. Economical evaluation of 100-kiloton cases
The estimated TCI of 100 ktons of MeOH production is 2nd highest
for the PBtMeOHb (180 M€), 3rd for the PBtMeOHa case (197 M€),
lowest for the BtMeOH case (164 M€) and highest for the PtMeOH case
(235 M€). The estimates are mostly based on a study made by Hannula I.
[4], which estimates the accuracy to be − 15%/+30%. For new tech­
nology typically learning takes place, decreasing the investment costs
when several plants are built. In addition, estimating the investment cost
accurately for novel technology is difficult and therefore in this study, an
accuracy of ±30% is assumed.
The reason why PtMeOH case and hybrid cases TCI is higher, comes
from the high installed equipment cost of the electrolyser, estimated by
Hannula [4] to be approx. 1000 €/kWe with no scaling with power, as
large electrolysers (>20 MW scale) don’t yet exist yet 2020 [22]. As the
hybrid cases are a hybrid of PtMeOH and BtMeOH cases they fall be­
tween these two in the TCI estimations due to the smaller capacity of the
installed electrolyser. The investment costs of electrolysers are esti­
mated to decrease in the future, as electrolysers are scaled up [2,22,35]
and electrolyser projects are supported by European Union (EU) [36,
37]. Cost reductions will make the PtMeOH and hybrid processes
competitive with gasification-only processes in an economic sense and
the development of high-efficiency SOEC electrolysis on an industrial
scale can further improve the yield of the hybrid processes. The Hybrid
process does not need so high-capacity electrolysers enabling the use of
electrolysers sooner.
The hybrid cases also fall in the middle in the initial LCOP of
methanol evaluations. The LCOP of methanol for the PBtMeOHa case is
511 €/ton (26 €/GJ) and the for PBtMeOHb case 448 €/ton (22 €/GJ).
The lowest LCOP of 370 €/ton (18 €/GJ) is achieved with the BtMeOH
E. Anetjärvi et al.
case and the highest is with the PtMeOH case with 728 €/ton (36 €/GJ).
However, it should be noted that the BtMeOH case does not help in
balancing the energy system, unlike the hybrid and PtMeOH cases.
In addition in many cases, only a limited amount of biomass is
available without additional infrastructure for transport and collection
for example as by-products from an industrial sawmill, pulp production
plant etc. It means that in hybrid cases it is possible to increase the
production capacity, which is an advantage.
BtMeOH case has a low initial LCOP due to smaller investment and
utilization of biomass. In hybrid and PtMeOH cases the high use and
high yearly cost associated with electricity use and the higher annual
capital charge cost due to electrolysis investment is the reason for higher
initial LCOP.
In the future, there can be a large amount of low-cost variable
renewable electricity available, when a lot of investments in wind and
solar power have been done [36]. The effect of electricity price on the
LCOP of methanol is illustrated in Fig. 8. The PBtMeOHa case LCOP
follows very closely to the PBtMeOHb case. At low electricity prices
(<21 €/MWh) it is more economical to utilize the CO2 in the hybrid
process than remove it. The electricity price has a sharp effect on the
LCOP of the PtMeOH case compared to the BtMeOH case. The effect of
electricity price on hybrid cases is in the middle of these two. When the
electricity price gets low enough the PtMeOH (<15 €/MWh) and hybrid
cases (<18 €/MWh) LCOP becomes even lower than the BtMeOH case. It
should also be noted that these results include the capital charge cost of
the electrolyser so in the case an electrolyser already exits it becomes
profitable to run the process in hybrid mode even with a higher elec­
tricity price.
Biomass costs typically vary from under approx. 16 €/MWh to over
26 €/MWh depending on the biomass and the locations of the plant [38].
The impact of biomass cost on profitability is illustrated in Fig. 9.
Logically, the hybrid cases are not as highly affected by the change in
biomass price as the BtMeOH case but still benefits from lower biomass
price.
The uncertainty of the price of CO2 and the capture method increases
the uncertainty towards the PtMeOH case competitiveness versus the
other cases and its impact on profitability is illustrated in Fig. 10. The
CO2 price is estimated to vary between e.g., 45–135 €/ton in Direct Air
Capture (DAC) [2]. This is illustrated in the Figure. On a large scale,
low-cost high concentration sources of CO2 are scarce such as fermen­
tation gas from bioethanol production and generally, CO2 has to be
separated from flue gas involving high costs.
The production scale affects the LCOP of the cases as well. This effect
was estimated with an assumed capacity exponent of 0.6 [24] for the
changed plant investment and O&M costs. From Fig. 11, can be seen that
the LCOP of the cases decreases with the increased capacity. On the
other hand, too large a production scale can be unfeasible due to the
excess need for capital investment, biomass, and/or electricity.
Subsequently, in Fig. 16 the influence of Fixed Capital Investment
(FCI) on the LCOP for the different cases is illustrated as a function of
change in FCI compared to the based case and FCI generally has a bigger
impact on the LCOP than other items such as maintenance and personnel
costs.
Furthermore, the hybrid cases, especially PBtMeOHa, have an
advantage from a biomass and logistics point of view due to the higher
yield of product per ton of biomass it is possible to reach a bigger
methanol production scale with lower biomass amount (see Fig. 5). The
large volume of biomass and its transportation distance, as well as the
small scale of biomass gasification plants compared for example to
natural gas-based methanol production plants, are significant challenges
with biomass-to-methanol processes [2].
3.3. Flexibility of hybrid methanol production
A key benefit of the Power-to-MeOH process’ is a flexible operation
with variable renewable energy production [2,3]. The hybrid process
8
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
including gasification can be operated flexibly, by varying input of
hydrogen to the process depending on the electricity price and avail­
ability. For different hydrogen inputs, there would be several possible
operating modes beyond using only CO or both CO and CO2 for meth­
anol production. From Figs. 4 and 12, it can be seen how varying CO2
utilization affects the hybrid plant electricity input and methanol output
for the 70 MW biomass usage and 100 kt MeOH production cases.70 MW
biomass requires 89.7 MW of electricity producing 95.0 MW of MeOH in
the case PBtMeOHa and 35.6 MW of electricity and producing 65.1 MW
of MeOH the in the case PBtMeOHb.
The operating mode also affects the LCOP of methanol (Figs. 7 and
13). The LCOP for both PBtMeOHa at 461€/ton with a TCI of 242 M€ and
PBtMeOHb at 462 €/ton with a TCI of 164 M€ are very close to each
other. The bigger MeOH production capacities make up for the bigger
TCI. The sensitivity analysis reveals that below 50 €/MW electricity
prices, it is beneficial to utilize CO2 and at high electricity prices the
opposite. But depending on the production scale and whether payback of
the bigger electrolyser or only operating costs are considered the con­
ditions when to utilize CO2 and CO or only CO vary (Figs. 8 and 15).
The future energy system is expected to have a high share of solar
and wind power with varying production and price [36]. Switching
between different modes in the hybrid process could help to balance the
production and demand of electricity and store electricity in the form of
methanol as well. Additional investment to the WGS reactor approx. 2
M€) could bring more flexibility enabling the hybrid process to operate
as the BtMeOH process. The electricity needed is low (7.7 MW). but also
the MeOH production is lower (47.2 MW). For 70 MW biomass, the
estimated LCOP of the BtMeOH case is 415 €/ton and the TCI 124 M€.
All the previous results apply for high 7500 h of annual operation of the
electrolyser, but when the annual operation time of the electrolyser is
reduced as illustrated in Fig. 17 the LCOP cost steeply increases for case
PtMEOH The hybrid cases res in only small changes in the LCOP when
the electrolyser operation time is reduced. The reason is that in the
PtMeOH, case reducing the electrolyser annual operation time requires
that hydrogen and CO2 have to be stored or the whole process has to be
overdesigned to reach the same annual production capacity of methanol
In the hybrid cases including the WGS reactor, the process still can be
operated as BtMEOH case when the electrolyser is not in use.
3.4. Comparisons to previous studies
Literature data of techno-economic performance are summarised in ,
Tables 4 and 5 and compared to the results of this study and all effi­
ciencies compare well with previous studies, but lower efficiency is
obtained of total efficiency in the PBtMEOH case compared to Ref. [14].
In addition, the BtMeOH and PtMeOH correspond well with literature
values.
The LCOP of PBtMeOHa in this study s approx. 10 €/GJ higher (see
Table 3) compared to Clausen et al. [14] and approx. 100 €/ton higher
for three cases compared to Ref. [6], but in this study, it is unclear if CO2
is utilised or only CO. The differences are explained by different
Fig. 15. Sensitivity on electricity price 70 MW biomass 70 MW usage cases.
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Table 4
Hybrid cases compared to previous studies. PBtMeOHb in brackets.
MeOH Efficiencies LCOP Investment Notes/ Ref.
production differences
scale

100 MeOH: 26 (23) 2260 - This

kilotons/ 59.5% €/GJ, (2430) study
y, 71 MW (61.7%), 92 (81) €/kW,MeOH
of MeOH DH: 26.3% €/MWh,
(23.3%), 511
Tot.: 85.8% (448)
(85.0%), €/t,
C.,uti.: 0.40
89.8% (0.35)
(61.5%). €/l.
70 MW Same. 23 (23) 2545 - This
biomass €/GJ, (2524) study
input 83 (83) €/kW,MeOH
Fig. 16. LCOP as function of investment cost compared to based case for 100 kt
€/MWh,
methanol production.
461
(462)
€/t,
0.36
(0.37)
€/l.
300 MeOH 14 - 40 €/MWh [14]
kilotons/ 67%, €/GJ, electricity,16
y, 205 DH: 27% 0.25 €/l. €/MWh
MW of Tot.: 96%. biomass price,
MeOH electrolyser
spec. cost of
200€/kW.
134 MW of MeOH: - - Hybrid [4]
gasoline 57.4-58.4% gasoline with
C.,uti.: 68- efficiencies for
92%. Methanol step.
Pressurised
CFB oxygen
and atm. steam
indirect
Fig. 17. Sensitivity on LCOP electrolyser operation time. gasifier, AEL
with 67%
efficiency.
economic assumptions, like electricity price and electrolyser invest­ 12-96 MW MeOH: 47- - - Different sized [12]
ment, as differences in technological assumptions, performance and of MeOH 53% (43- AEL to meet
capacity. The sensitivity on electricity indicated that LCOP of methanol 52%). oxygen
demand and
price values reported by other studies can be achieved. On the other
CO2 utilization.
hand, the estimation by Hannula using a different modelling tool [17] AEL efficiency
for PBtMeOHb case LCOP is very close, due to similar assumptions being of approx.
used. 70%.
The BtMEOH case LCOP estimate compares well with IEA [39] 100 MW MeOH: 64- - - SOEC [13]
biomass 72% (55- electrolysis
IRENA and Methanol Institute [2] (see Table 4). as well as Hannula and input 62%), with different
Kurkela [11]. The PtMeOH case’s initial LCOP estimate falls in the C.,uti.: 85- gasifiers and
middle of a large range of methanol prices reported by Refs. [2,6] (see 97% (47- combinations
Table 5). 60%). depending on
electricity
In the cases in this study are in the investment range reported by
price.
IRENA and Methanol Institute including already existing, plants under 500 MW MeOH: 56- - - Integrated/ [14]
engineering as well as four hybrid plants [2]. The limitations of the study and 2900 62 %, External
are that only fluidized bed gasifiers are considered, and the study is MW C.,uti.: 77- torrefaction
based on modelling and not real but hard to get full-scale plant data of biomass 96%. with entrained
input flow gasifier
gasifiers, which would be the most accurate option. Furthermore, only and AEL with
AEL and not more energy-efficient but less mature SOEC or PEM elec­ 70% efficiency.
trolyzers are studied. On the other hand, the hybrid cases are compared 20-385 - 325-385 - Not specified is [6]
to both biomass to methanol and e-methanol under many different kilotons/ €/t. CO2 utilized or
y of not.
conditions to rigorously evaluate the benefits and in particular with
MeOH
different levels of hydrogen supplementation to the process. 78/200 MW MeOH: (24) - Only without [17]
(55.6%), €/GJ. CO2 utilization
4. Conclusions DH: 62% AEL
(11.8%), efficiency with
Tot: WGS-reactor.
In this study, the benefits and techno-economical performance such (67.4%). AEL cooling
as efficiency and production cost of hybrid methanol production in heat not
connection with biomass gasification compared to standalone e-ethanol (continued on next page)

9
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Table 4 (continued ) Table 6

MeOH Efficiencies LCOP Investment Notes/ Ref.
PtMeOH case compared to previous studies.
production differences MeOH Efficiencies LCOP Investment Notes/ Ref.
scale Production differences
scale
utilized.
Internal elect. 100 MeOH: 36 €/GJ, 2350 - This
prod. with kilotons/ 52.6%, 131 €/t,MeoH. study
steam cycle. y, 71 MW DH: 32.3%, €/MWh,
DH 29 €/MWh, Tot.: 728 €/t,
O2 27€/t and 84.9%, 0.57 €/l.
CO2 40€/t. C.,uti.:
N/A N/A - (1460- With 1 USD is [2] 80.9%.
3450) approx. 0.9 €. Approx. MeOH 25.3 €/GJ, - 40 €/MWh [14]
€/ For planned 300 53%, 0.44 €/l. electricity
kW,MeOH plants kilotons/ DH: 33%, and 15 €/ton
36.0-37.9 C.,uti.: - - No direct [40] y, 205 Tot.: 86%. CO2 price,
MW of 90.5- comparison MW electrolyser
ethanol 91.1%. possible. spec. cost
with Hybrid C.uti., 200€/kW.
methanol reported. Approx. 18- MeOH 49- 294 -1100 - Range due [6]
step 880 52%. €/t. uncertainty
60 MWth MeOH: 61- 30 $/GJ (2000€/ different [42] kilotons/ in price of
biomass 64 % (26 kW,MeOH) hybrid y CO2 and H2.
input €/GJ) processes N/A MeOH: 50- 225-2400 290-4230 Range due [2]
Methanol, 60%. €/t. €/t,MeoH uncertainty
SNG, DME and in price of
Jet Fuel SOE CO2 and H2,
electrolyser with 1 USD is
with steam and approx. 0.9
co-feed of CO2 €.
and steam 60/200 MeOH: 40 €/GJ. - 62% AEL [17]
MW 48.6%. efficiency.
Internal
elect. prod.
Table 5 with steam
BtMeOH case compared to previous studies. cycle DH 29
€/MWh, O2
MeOH Efficiencies LCOP Investment Notes/ Ref.
27€/t and
production differences
CO2 40€/t.
scale
146.7 System eff: 537 $/ton 150.4 M$ SOE [41]
100 MeOH: 18 €/GJ, 2210 - This Annual 72 % (470 €/ton) (132 M€) eletrolyser
kilotons/ 60.7%, 67 €/kW,MeoH study CO2 use Carbon uti: for 60 with H2O
y, 71 MW DH: 19.0%, €/MWh, 100 kt 93.6 % €/MWh and CO2 co-
Tot.: 370 €/t, annual and 447 electrolysis
79.7%, 0.29 €/l, MeOH $/ton 50
C.,uti.: €/MWh
44.6%. electricity
70 MW Same. 21 €/GJ, 2637 - This (393€/ton)
biomass 75 €/kW,MeoH study
input €/MWh,
415 €/t, hydrogen supplementation from the water electrolysis were determined.
0.33 €/l. In the study, the more efficient options using waste heat from electro­
183-200 MeOH: 58.4- - Biomass [11]
MW 57.4- 65.1 16.9€/MWh,
lyser for drying biomass and more energy-efficient electrically heated
66.7%, €/MWh. Steam and WG reformers were not evaluated and in addition, more accurate evaluation
DH: 0- utilized in could be done in future work, using data from an industrial scale gasifier
18.9%, electricity detailed heat integration using the high-temperature heat for power
Tot: 60.8- production.
production.
77.8 %.
N/A MeOH: 53- 200-700 640-3850 Different cost [2]
62%. €/ton €/kW,MeoH of biomass, • The benefits could be quantified and a new finding in the study was
with 1 USD is the two different operating modes using only CO or both CO and CO2
approx. 0.9 €. that were different in terms of efficiency.
N/A MeOH: 50- 70-112 Different cost [39]
65%. €/MWh. group of
• These apply not only to methanol production but any gasification
biomass. process where the WGS reaction is used to increase the hydrogen
60/200 MW MeOH: 21 €/GJ. - Internal elect. [17] content.
57.6% prod. with • In the first mode, PBtMeOHb was only enough hydrogen so that no
DH: 11.8%, steam cycle
WGS reactor is needed. For this case, the methanol yield increased by
Tot.: 69.5. DH 29
€/MWh, O2 38.1% compared to BtMEOH and carbon yield increased from 44.6%
27€/t and CO2 to 63.1 and LCOP increased from 421 €/ton to 461 €/ton. The dis­
40€/t. advantages are that: the electrolyser can only produce part of the
needed O2 as a by-product and CO2 separation before methanol
production is required.
and biomass-based methanol production were studied. Furthermore, the
• In the 2nd mode, enough hydrogen is added so that also CO2 present
most suitable conditions in terms of raw material, electricity captured
in the gasification gas can be utilised for methanol production. In this
CO2 price, annual availability of the power source and different levels of

10
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

PBtMeOH the product yield increased by 101% compared to manuscript, developed the methodology, and calculated and organized
BtMEOH and carbon yield increased to 89.8% and a similar LCOP of the presented data. KM and EV wrote and revised the manuscript and
461 €/ton as in the previous case is obtained. The advantage is that: supervised the work.
enough oxygen for the gasification is produced and no separation of
CO2 is needed. the disadvantage is that: a more expensive electro­ Declaration of competing interest
lyser with a higher capacity is needed.
• The hybrid cases can store wind and solar power by varying The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
hydrogen input to the process from the electrolysers and therefore interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
LCOP remains at lower levels even with a low annual operation level the work reported in this paper.
compared to e-methanol production.
• Both hybrid cases reduce the biogenic CO2 emissions compared to Data availability
biomass-based methanol production.
Data will be made available on request.
Authorship statement

EA performed the process modelling in IPSEpro, wrote the

Appendix A. Process layouts in IPSEpro

Fig. 18. Hybrid methanol with CO2 utilization (PBtMeOHa) process model case with 100 kt of MeOH production in IPSEpro.

11
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Fig. 19. Hybrid methanol without CO2 utilization (PBtMeOHb) process model case with 100 kt of MeOH production in IPSEpro.

Fig. 20. E-methanol (PtMeOH) model case with 100 kt of MeOH production in IPSEpro.

12
E. Anetjärvi et al. Energy 276 (2023) 127202

Fig. 21. Bio-methanol (BtMeOH) process model case with 100 kt of MeOH production in IPSEpro.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127202.

References Research Centre of Finland 2013:114. Espoo, https://publications.vtt.fi/pdf/tech

nology/2013/T91.pdf. Espoo.
[12] Koytsoumpa EI, Karellas S, Kakaras E. Modelling of methanol production via
[1] Methanol Institute (MI). Web-site, referenced: [8.6.2022] available from. 2022.
combined gasification and power to fuel. Renew Energy 2020;158:598–611.
https://www.methanol.org/.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.169. ISSN 0960-1481.
[2] IRENA and Methanol Institute. Innovation outlook: renewable methanol,
[13] Butera G, Fendt S, Jensen SH, Ahrenfeldt J, Clausen LR. Flexible methanol
international renewable energy agency. 2021. Abu Dhabi. ISBN: 978-92-9260-320-
production units coupling solid oxide cells and thermochemical biomass
5. Referenced: [8.6.2022], Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files
conversion via different gasification technologies. Energy 2020;208:118432.
/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jan/IRENA_Innovation_Renewable_Methanol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118432. ISSN 0360-5442.
_2021.pdf.
[14] Clausen LR, Houbak N, Elmegaard B. Technoeconomic analysis of a methanol plant
[3] Bertau M, Offermanns H, Plass L, Schmidt F, Wernicke H. Methanol: the basic
based on gasification of biomass and electrolysis of water. Energy (Oxford) 2010;
chemical and energy feedstock of the future asinger’s vision today. Berlin,
35(5):2338–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.034. ISSN 0360-5442.
Heidelberg: Springer; 2014 [Berlin Heidelberg].
[15] Clausen LR. Maximizing biofuel production in a thermochemical biorefinery by
[4] Hannula I. Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in
adding electrolytic hydrogen and by integrating torrefaction with entrained flow
the European context: a techno-economic assessment. Energy (Oxford) 2016;104:
gasification. Energy 2015;85:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.119. ISSN 0360-5442.
energy.2015.03.089. ISSN 0360-5442.
[5] Roode-Gutzmer QI, Kaiser D, Bertau M. Renewable methanol synthesis.
[16] Korberg AD, Mathiesen BV, Clausen LR, Skov IR. The role of biomass gasification in
ChemBioEng Rev 2019;6(6):209–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/cben.201900012.
low-carbon energy and transport systems,. Smart Energy 2021;ume 1:100006.
[6] Science Energy & Environmental. Power-to-liquid via synthesis of methanol, DME
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segy.2021.100006. ISSN 2666-9552.
or Fischer–Tropsch-fuels: a review 2020;13:3207–52. https://doi.org/10.1039/
[17] Hannula I. Co-production of synthetic fuels and district heat from biomass residues,
D0EE01187H.
carbon dioxide and electricity: performance and cost analysis. Biomass Bioenergy
[7] Holmgren KM, Berntsson T, Andersson E, Rydberg T. System aspects of biomass
2015;74:26–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.01.006. ISSN 0961-
gasification with methanol synthesis – Process concepts and energy analysis.
9534.
Energy 2012;45(1):817–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.009. ISSN
[18] SimTech Simulation Technology, IPSEPro description. Web-site, referenced
0360-5442.
[25.11.2022]. Available from: https://www.simtechnology.com/CMS/index.php
[8] Zhang Z, Delcroix B, Rezazgui O, Mangin P. Simulation and techno-economic
/ipsepro/system-description; 2022.
assessment of bio-methanol production from pine biomass, biochar and pyrolysis
[19] Olateju B, Kumar A. Hydrogen production from wind energy in Western Canada for
oil. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2021;44:101002. https://doi.org/
upgrading bitumen from oil sands. Energy (Oxford) 2011;36(11):6326–39. https://
10.1016/j.seta.2021.101002. ISSN 2213-1388.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.045. ISSN 0360-5442.
[9] Rivera-Tinoco R, Farran M, Bouallou C, Auprêtre F, Valentin S, Millet P, et al.
[20] IRENA. Hydrogen from renewable power: technology outlook for the energy
Investigation of power-to-methanol processes coupling electrolytic hydrogen
transition, international renewable energy agency. 2018. Abu Dhabi. ISBN: 978-92-
production and catalytic CO2 reduction. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(8):
9260-077-8. Referenced: [8.6.2022], Available from, https://www.irena.org/-/me
4546–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.059. ISSN 0360-3199.
dia/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Sep/IRENA_Hydrogen_from_renew
[10] Anicic B, Trop P, Goricanec D. Comparison between two methods of methanol
able_power_2018.pdf.
production from carbon dioxide. Energy (Oxford) 2014;77:279–89. https://doi.
[21] Ghandehariun S, Kumar A. Life cycle assessment of wind-based hydrogen
org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.069. ISSN 0360-5442.
production in Western Canada. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(22):9696–704.
[11] Hannula I, Kurkela E. Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised-bed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.077. ISSN 0360-3199.
gasification of lignocellulosic biomass. VTT Technology, no. 91, VTT Technical
[22] IRENA. Green hydrogen cost reduction: scaling up electrolysers to meet the 1.5⁰C
climate goal, international renewable energy agency. Abu Dhabi: ISBN; 2020. 978-

13
E. Anetjärvi et al.
92-9260-295-6. Referenced: [8.6.2022], Available from: https://www.irena.
org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Green_hydroge
n_cost_2020.pdf.
[23] Lehner M, Tichler R, Steinmüller H, Koppe M. Power-to-Gas : technology and
business models. Cham: Springer; 2014.
[24] Buttler A, Spliethoff H. Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid
balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2018;82:2440–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.09.003. ISSN 1364-0321.
[25] VTT. Electrolyser market outlook: decarbonate Co Innovation project Converting
cost to revenue, Webinar PowerPoint, held 11.6.2020. Referenced: [8.6.2022].
https://www.decarbonate.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Decarbonate_h
ydrogen_webinar_10062020.pdf; 2020.
[26] Laaksonen P, Karjunen H, Ruokonen J, Laari A, Zhaurova M, Kinnunen S, et al.
Feasibility study for industrial pilot of carbon-neutral fuel production – P2X: final
report. ISBN:978-952-335-668-9. Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology
LUT; 2021. https://urn.fi/URN.
[27] Basu P. Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction - practical design and
theory. third ed. Elsevier; 2018.
[28] Cerone N, Zimbardi F, Contuzzi L, Prestipino M, Carnevale MO, Valerio V. Air-
steam and oxy-steam gasification of hydrolytic residues from biorefinery. Fuel
Process Technol 2017;167:451–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuproc.2017.07.027. ISSN 0378-3820.
[29] Higman C, Mvd Burgt. Gasification. Amsterdam: Gulf Professional Pub./Elsevier
Science; 2008.
[30] Aneke M, Wang M. Potential for improving the energy efficiency of cryogenic air
separation unit (ASU) using binary heat recovery cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2015;81:
223–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.02.034. April.
[31] Nestler F, Krüger M, Full J, Hadrich MJ, White RJ, Schaadt A. Methanol synthesis –
industrial challenges within a changing raw material landscape. Chem Ing Tech
2018;90(10):1409–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201800026.
[32] Peinado C, Liuzzi D, Sanchís Alberto, Pascual L, Miguel A, Peña Boon J, et al. Situ
conditioning of CO2-rich syngas during the synthesis of methanol. Catalysts 11
(534) 2021;534. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11050534.
[33] Nordio M, Wassie SA, Van Sint Annaland M, Pacheco Tanaka DA, Viviente Sole JL,
Gallucci F. Techno-economic evaluation on a hybrid technology for low hydrogen
concentration separation and purification from natural gas grid. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2021;46(45):23417–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.009.
ISSN 0360-3199.
[34] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant design and economics for chemical
engineers. fifth ed.. 2002 [McGraw-Hill Professional].
[35] IRENA. Global renewables outlook: energy transformation 2050 (edition: 2020).
Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2020. ISBN 978-92-9260-
238-3 Referenced: [8.6.2022], Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Fil
es/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Global_Renewables_Outlook
_2020.pdf.
14
Energy 276 (2023) 127202
[36] EU. A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe, Referenced: [8.6.2022].
Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.
pdf; 2020.
[37] Shell. Shell starts up Europe’s largest PEM green hydrogen electrolyser, Web-site,
Referenced [8.6.2022]. Available from: https://www.shell.com/media/news-and
-media-releases/2021/shell-starts-up-europes-largest-pem-green-hydrogen-electrol
yser.html; 2021.
[38] IRENA. Global bioenergy supply and demand projections for the year 2030.
Referenced: [8.6.2022]. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/
IRENA/Agency/Publication/2014/IRENA_REmap_2030_Biomass_paper_2014.pdf;
2014.
[39] IEA. Advanced biofuels – potential for cost reduction., referenced: [8.6.2022].
Available from: https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02
/T41_CostReductionBiofuels-11_02_19-final.pdf; 2020.
[40] Melin K, Nieminen H, Klüh D, Laari A, Koiranen T, Gaderer M. Techno-economic
evaluation of novel hybrid biomass and electricity-based ethanol fuel production.
Front Energy Res 2022;10:796104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.796104.
[41] Zhang H, Desideri U. Techno-economic optimization of power-to-methanol with
co-electrolysis of CO2 and H2O in solid-oxide electrolyzers. 199 2020;117498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117498. ISSN 0360-5442.
[42] Zhang H, Wang L, Herle JV, Maréchal F, Desideri U. Techno-economic evaluation
of biomass-to-fuels with solid-oxide electrolyzer. Applied Energy, 270 2020;
115113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115113. ISSN 0306-2619.
[43] Dossow M, Dieterich V, Hanel A, Spliethoff H. Fendt S.,Improving carbon efficiency
for an advanced Biomass-to-Liquid process using hydrogen and oxygen from
electrolysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,152 2021;111670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111670. ISSN 1364-0321.
[44] Jia J, Shu L, Zang G, Xu L, Abudula A, Ge K. Energy analysis and techno-economic
assessment of a co-gasification of woody biomass and animal manure, solid oxide
fuel cells and micro gas turbine hybrid system. Energy 2018;149:750–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.057. ISSN 0360-5442.
[45] Butera G, Fendt S, Jensen SH, Ahrenfeldt J, Clausen LR. Flexible methanol
production units coupling solid oxide cells and thermochemical biomass
conversion via different gasification technologies, Energy. 208 2020;118432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118432. ISSN 0360-5442.
[46] Poluzzi A, Guandalini G, Guffanti S, Elsido C, Moioli S, Huttenhuis P, Rexwinkel G,
Martelli E, Groppi G, Romano MC. Flexible Power & Biomass-to-Methanol plants:
design optimization and economic viability of the electrolysis integration. 310 ,
Part A Fuel 2022;122113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122113. ISSN
0016-2361.
[47] Dongliang W, Wenliang M, Huairong Z, Guixian L, Yong Y, Hongwei L. Green
hydrogen coupling with CO2 utilization of coal-to-methanol for high methanol
productivity and low CO2 emission. Energy,231 2021;120970. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2021.120970. ISSN 0360-5442.