All subjects
Opinion & commentary

New white paper looks at methanol’s carbon footprint

Carbon footprint insights for methanol in the literature are scarce and often outdated. Using the European Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) methodology, a new white paper provides an updated Lifecycle Carbon Assessment of various methanol production feedstocks and processes based on data supplied by a dozen companies.

To increase the understanding of carbon footprint assessment within the industry, and at the same time obtain insights into the current status of methanol climate impacts, the Methanol Institute (MI) engaged the Netherlands-based independent consultancy firm studio Gear Up (sGU) to conduct a lifecycle carbon footprint assessment (LCA) study of multiple methanol production feedstocks and processes.

Carbon footprint insights for methanol in the literature are scarce and often outdated. Using the European Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) methodology, a new white paper released by the Methanol Institute (MI) provides an updated  Lifecycle Carbon Assessment of various methanol production feedstocks and processes (graphic courtesy MI).

In this project, sGU calculated the carbon footprint of methanol from data supplied directly by 12 companies, and this white paper titled “Carbon Footprint of Methanol” presents the aggregated and anonymized results.

The carbon footprint or greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of methanol can be calculated by accounting for all material and energy inputs and outputs in the production and supply chain.

The GHG performance of methanol depends strongly on the type of feedstock, on conversion efficiencies, and on energy use during the production process.

Some production pathways have been assessed in the past. However, the underlying data for such calculations are typically thin and sometimes up to 25 years old.

According to MI, for a “fruitful conversation” with the methanol-using industry, shipping industry, and renewable energy policymakers, there is a need for harmonized calculations based on the latest insights.

The reported findings provide “a start to this conversation, recognizing that additional data will emerge as new approaches are adopted to understand and reduce the carbon footprint of existing conventional production facilities and as we see the further commercial expansion of bio-methanol and e-methanol production.”

Key findings of the white paper include:

  • The carbon footprint of methanol depends on the feedstock and the production pathway, taking into account all the emissions caused directly by the supply chain and by energy and materials used in the supply chain. A core element of the study is based on the carbon balance of methanol production: the calculation of how much carbon enters the facility via feedstock and fuel, and how much leaves via the products (methanol), while assuming that the difference leaves the facility principally as carbon dioxide (CO2).
  • The majority of emissions in fossil pathways concern the stoichiometric end-of-life emissions when using methanol as a fuel for internal combustion engines in cars, trucks, buses, and ships. In pathways based on renewable feedstocks, these emissions are climate-neutral resulting in a significant reduction in overall climate emissions as the carbon footprint greatly improves.
  • Variations within feedstock in the same category, technological differences in the installation set-up, and supply chain differences cause a significant difference in the lifecycle carbon footprint results.
  • Due to the differences in outcomes, one should not apply default carbon footprint factors for fossil or renewable methanol or even per feedstock category. Instead, the carbon footprint of methanol should be measured and certified to account for individual plant-specific differences – as is advised for any fuel.
  • Most methanol is currently produced from natural gas, where natural gas is used both as a feedstock and as a process fuel. CO2 emissions from the facility are accounted for by using a carbon mass balance methodology. Modern facilities today produce methanol with an estimated carbon footprint of about 110 g CO2 eq/MJ, which is higher than what was considered state-of-the-art two decades ago, of about 97 g CO2 eq/MJ, most likely because the insight in carbon accounting has improved with data in the current study. The footprint is especially sensitive to the source of the natural gas. When sourced from the less carbon-emitting sources of natural gas, the methanol supply chain emissions can decrease to about 103 g CO2 eq/ MJ. When exhaust CO2 is recycled back to the methanol reactor, the production of methanol increases and facility emissions decrease, and as a result, the lifecycle emissions per MJ of product decrease to 93-101 g CO2 eq/MJ. These results are between 4 g CO2 eq/MJ better and 13 CO2 eq/MJ higher than the value used in calculations by EU Joint Research Centre JRC under RED II [EC JRC 2017a].
  • Production from coal only takes place in China and has a higher carbon footprint of nearly 300 g CO2 eq/ MJ, due to large emissions associated with both the mining of coal and the methanol conversion process.
  • Production from renewable sources, such as biomethane, solid biomass, municipal solid waste (MSW), which contains a considerable fraction of organic waste, and renewable energy has a low carbon footprint. Most of these pathways achieve 10-40 g CO2 eq/MJ, and some pathways even have negative emissions (-55 gCO2 eq/MJ for methanol from biomethane from cow manure) which means effectively that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere or that the pathway avoids emissions that would have otherwise taken place in other processes.

Most read on Bioenergy International

Get the latest news about Bioenergy

Subscribe for free to our newsletter
Sending request
I accept that Bioenergy International stores and handles my information.
Read more about our integritypolicy here