In Brief

Carbon Capture Storage and Use (CCSU) will be essential for the UK to meet its Climate Change Targets after the UK’s successful emissions reduction by transitioning from coal to gas in the Power sector

However, the Committee should split CCSU into Carbon Capture and Use (CCU) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for the purpose of developing a UK Business Energy and Industrial Policy.

In the global energy transition, CSS can only make a relatively small contribution to controlling CO2 emissions and CCU should be given higher priority

As renewable and nuclear energy expands, it is possible to consider large scale CCU with CO2 to methanol. It is one of the few options with a potential scale to address emissions from the fossil fuel market.  New technology for direct capture of CO2 from the air makes CCU much more flexible.

CCU CO2 to methanol would help meet future targets that require decarbonisation of the transport sector, at the same time avoiding significant costs for an electric vehicle infrastructure and helping with Grid Stabilisation as the share of Wind and Solar energy increases.

Commercial scale CO2 to Methanol plants are operating in Iceland and under construction in Norway.

The UK should consider increasing its expertise in this option and conduct a broad study to integrate CCU into its energy transition due to its potential to increase energy security, provide economic growth, enable new routes to carbon sequestration, and define a real Carbon Price.

Carbon Dioxide to Methanol as a sustainable fuel and chemical feedstock

Introduction

The purpose of this brief is to bring to the Committee’s attention a developing sustainable energy option – the use of carbon dioxide to make a fuel replacement at a truly global scale that will significantly help to limit climate change.

Such an approach would have several policy advantages:

Increased Energy security: Production of liquid fuels could be localised.

Economic Growth: Creation of a local energy industry and removal of a drag on economic growth as it avoids the major social disruption and expense of decarbonisation of transport.

Defines a real Carbon Price: The costs of this system would demonstrate a true representative ‘sustainable carbon price’.

Enables Routes to Sequestration: Use of the products as feedstock to the chemical and building industries provides a route to sequestrate carbon.

Synergistic with future energy grids: It supports policies to develop renewable and nuclear energy and the hydrogen economy.  It will create a ‘chemical battery’ supporting electrical grid stabilisation.

For the UK, there is particular relevance to this approach.  As highlighted by the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, great progress has been made on decarbonising the UK economy by switching out of coal for electricity production.  However, meeting future targets is increasingly at risk, in large part due to the slow decarbonisation of the transport sector. [1]

Carbon Capture and Use (CCU) vs Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Between 1959 and 2015, fossil fuels and cement production have generated 1.2 trillion tonnes of CO2 (eq)[1] emissions of which 0.6 trillion tonnes have stayed in the air, 0.7 trillion tones have dissolved in the oceans and 0.4 trillion tonnes have found a land sink. (The difference in numbers is due to emissions from land use changes). [2]

Currently, global emissions from fossil fuels and cement production are about 36 billion tonnes/yr of CO2 (eq), of which 11 billion tonnes sinks into the sea and 7 billion tonnes sinks into the land.

Although it is a geophysical possibility that global warming can be limited to 1.5C to 2C [3], it is increasingly unlikely that this constitutes a technical or socially acceptable option.  It would require net negative emissions in the second half of this century.  In its World Energy Review 2018 [4], BP forecasts that CO2 emissions will still be 36 billion te/yr in 2040 under its ‘Evolving Transition’ scenario and 18 billion tonne/yr under its ‘Even Faster Transition Scenario’.

Decarbonisation of the economy is proceeding too slowly and other options need to fill the gap if we are to avoid having to cope with the social disruption of accelerating climate change.

Carbon Capture Storage and Use (CCSU) is cited as a means of meeting climate change targets.

However, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Use (CCU) should be regarded as separate policy options as they have very different characteristics.

A quick look at the numbers indicates that CCS can only solve a very small part of the problem.  BP indicates that CCUS could contribute 1.2-1.7 billion te/yr in the year 2040 [4].  Compare this to current land and ocean sinks of 18 billion te/yr.  It seems unlikely that any ongoing CCS programme will find sufficient geological formations to be applicable over the decades that may be required for an energy transition.  It would be easier to simply dissolve more CO2 into the oceans if it were socially acceptable and scientifically advisable [5].

Another limitation of CCS today is that it is focused on the sequestration of concentrated CO2 sources.  Examples are power stations, to reduce their environmental impact, or in hydrocarbon extraction where CO2 is left in-situ after enhancing the extraction of fossil fuels.

CCS cannot address the major problem of emissions from the transport sector which are widely distributed.  This is one reason why the electrification of transport is of such high priority.

CCU is an alternative approach to capture CO2 from both concentrated industrial sources and directly from the air and use the carbon it contains. 

It is well known that CO2 can be used with water or hydrogen to produce methanol.  To have a significant impact on Global Warming there is only one market large enough to consume enough CO2 (converted to methanol).  That is the liquid fuels market itself which stands at around 8 billion tonnes/yr oil equivalent.

Methanol is already known to be a fuel replacement.  Methanol, produced from natural gas, is already used in fuel blends for cars and is being considered as a clean bunker fuel to replace heavy sulphur diesel used in shipping.

It goes without saying that other markets totalling about 90 million tonnes/yr of methanol made with natural gas exist as it is a chemical feedstock.  See Supplementary Information on Methanol at the end of this Brief.

However, to be sustainable, this approach only makes sense if the energy required comes from non-fossil fuel sources [6-12].

The prize, therefore, is the replacement of fossil fuels with methanol derived from renewable energy and atmospheric carbon dioxide. These carbon neutral liquid fuels can be made locally in the UK using energy from non-fossil fuels and with a minimal disruption to the current transportation market.  If the existing methanol market is also considered, it will be a route to sequestrate CO2 in millions of tonnes of chemicals.

Finally the costs of producing methanol fuels from CO2 will represent a real cost of carbon in a sustainable economy.

Background to the Technology

Chemical processes to make methanol from CO2 already exist.  The most popular is based on using natural gas as a feedstock.  It is this process which sets the economic barrier against which new processes must compete in today’s competitive market [13].

General use of methanol as a sustainable fuel only makes environmental sense if it is based on non-fossil fuel energy source that is available in abundant supply.

This condition is now imaginable as wind, solar and nuclear energy become more available.

As wind and solar energy are intermittent, CO2 to Methanol plants could be designed to stabilise the electricity grid by converting excess energy into chemical energy – effectively acting as a battery [8].

There are 3 separate technology platforms involved:

CO2 capture and absorption:

In the case of industrial sources, carbon dioxide has to be cleaned of impurities (dust, acidic gas, oxygen, nitrogen and water) and concentrated up as it is present at only 6-12% in flue gas.

In the case of air, the CO2 has to be concentrated up from its level in the air of 0.04%.

Processes for this exist for both flue gases and air, the most common based on the absorption and desorption of CO2 onto amines.  The energy required is available via low pressure steam [14].

Methanol production via thermochemical reactions:

Methanol can be produced by heating water and CO2 to a temperature (typically >850°C) where, with a catalyst, they chemically breakdown and the resulting elements react to form methanol.  Large scale processes based on thermal energy from renewable electricity, nuclear reactors and solar furnaces have been proposed.

Methanol production from CO2 and hydrogen:

Co2 can be broken down to carbon monoxide (CO) which is reacted with hydrogen to make methanol.  In this case the hydrogen is made by electrolysis using electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.

Finally, the two processes can also be combined to create high efficiency electrolysis, termed the steam electrolysis process.

Although all these processes are known at Technology Readiness Levels 5-7, for general deployment the processes require integration and process optimisation (for example reactor designs, energy optimisation, electrolysis and catalyst developments, reduction in the plant footprint, etc).

Examples of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol plants

However, special circumstances have enabled the commercial operation of CO2 to methanol processes. 

Carbon Recycling International in Iceland, founded in 2006, makes 4000 tonnes/yr of methanol from industrial CO2 waste using geothermal, wind and solar energy.  The resulting methanol is sold for blending into fuels [15].

In addition, Sunfire GmbH [16] has started the construction of a first commercial scale plant rated at 20MW (e), to produce 8000 tonnes/yr of fuel.   It is based on CO2 capture directly from the air.  Steam electrolysis is used to convert CO2 and water to liquid fuel using hydroelectric power.  Carbon capture is based on absorption by amine filters supplied by Climeworks AG, Zurich.  The plant is in Norway and is expected to start in 2020 [17].

Why is UK Government intervention required?

Previous studies have pointed out that the UK would benefit from increasing its commitment to developing CCU and highlighting the need to broaden the knowledge in the UK and consider demonstration units [18].

However, as long as fossil fuels dominate methanol production, carbon dioxide to methanol will be economically disadvantaged.  As usual, there is no level playing field when new technologies compete with the established fossil fuel industry.

To overcome the inevitable entry barriers for a new technology entering an existing market supportive policies can help with issue of technical and commercial risk such as achieving economies of scale, compatible technical standards, market pricing to avoid new entrants, price fluctuations as new capacity creates supply demand imbalances and variation in feedstock costs.

These supportive policies would be justified by the avoided costs of decarbonising the transport system – namely the development of alternative drive vehicles, the replacement of the existing car pool and the cost of a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The suggested policies are

Investments in a centre of expertise with funding for demonstration scale facilities

Support to study the integration of CO2 to methanol technology into the UK energy system and identify suitable locations for initial investments

Support for partnerships that share risks of demonstration projects and business start-ups

Increasing the costs of the unabated use of carbon sources by limits on CO2 emissions and carbon pricing

Ensuring that regulations and technical specifications on fuel quality standards allow fuel blends containing sustainable carbon fuels such as methanol from C02

References

1. Reducing UK emissions 2018 Progress Report to Parliament, Committee on Climate Change, June 2018.
    
2. Global Carbon Budget 2016: Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Manning, A. C., Boden, T. A., Tans, P. P., Houghton, R. A., Keeling, R. F., Alin, S.,  Andrews, O. D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S. C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T.,  Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N.,  Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., O’Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M.,  Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605-649, doi:10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, 2016. http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/
3. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, Millar, Richard J, Fuglestvedt, Jan S, Friedlingstein, Pierre, Rogelj, Joeri, Grubb, Michael J, Matthews, H. Damon, Skeie, Ragnhild B, Forster, Piers M, Frame, David J, Allen, Myles R. Nature Geoscience, 2017/09/18/online, VOL 10, 741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3031

4. BP World Energy Outlook, www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html
    
5. A review of research progress on CO2 capture, storage, and utilization in Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lei Li a,b, Ning Zhao b, Wei Wei , Yuhan Sun, Fuel 108 (2013) 112–130
    
6. Catalysis for the Valorization of Exhaust Carbon: from CO2 to Chemicals, Materials, and Fuels. Technological Use of CO2, Michele Aresta, Angela Dibenedetto, and Antonella Angelini, Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 1709-1742
    
7. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts, Rosa M. Cue´llar-Franca, Adisa Azapagic, Journal of CO2 Utilization 9 (2015) 82–102
    
8. Techno-economic study of the storage of fluctuating renewable energy in liquid hydrocarbons, Daniel H. König ⇑, Marcel Freiberg, Ralph-Uwe Dietrich, Antje Wörner, Fuel 159 (2015) 289–297.
    
9. Methanol production from CO2 using solar-thermal energy: process development and techno-economic analysis, Jiyong Kim,a Carlos A. Henao,a Terry A. Johnson,b Daniel E. Dedrick,b James E. Miller,c Ellen B. Stecheld and Christos T. Maravelias, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 3122. DOI: 10.1039/c1ee01311d
    
10. Comparative energetic assessment of methanol production from CO2: Chemical versus
    electrochemical process, Haitham Al-Kalbani, Jin Xuan, Susana García, Huizhi Wang, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh
     
11. Catalytic carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol: A review of recent studies, Suhas G. Jadhav a, Prakash D. Vaidya a,∗, Bhalchandra M. Bhanage b, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi, chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2557–2567.
     
12. Recent development in catalytic technologies for methanol synthesis from renewable sources: A critical review, Khozema Ahmed Ali, Ahmad Zuhairi Abdullah n, Abdul Rahman Mohamed, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 508–518.
     
13. Methanex Investor Presentation May 2018, Methanex website www.methanex.com
     
14. Climeworks AG website www.climeworks.com
     
15. Carbon Recycling International website www.carbonrecycling.is
     
16. Sunfire GmbH website www.sunfire.de
     
17. Sunfire to build 8 000 tonne-per-annum power-to-liquid facility in Norway, Alan Sherrard, Biotechnology International, 18 July 2017
     
18. The Potential and Limitations of using Carbon Dioxide Policy Brief, The Royal Society, May 2017, ISBN 978-1-78252-267-6

Supplement

What is Methanol?

Methanol is a global traded chemical with a market size of ~90 million tonnes/yr and growing at 5% pa.

The main uses are as a chemical feedstock, fuel additive and fuel replacement.  It is being developed as a replacement for marine diesel to reduce maritime sulphur emissions and to make commodity plastics such as polyethylene in Methanol to Olefins (MTO) processes.

Figure 1 Methanol Uses (Source Methanex)                            

It is mainly produced from natural gas in plants with capacities of 0.5 – 1 million tonnes/yr.  The main process is steam reforming using natural gas. It can also be made from coal or other carbon sources such as biomass.

Figure 2 Historical methanol price vs oil (Source Methanex and OPEC)

Methanol as a fuel

Methanol is used as a fuel but is more likely to be used in a blend.  It is hygroscopic and needs to be stored in sealed containers.  It can have impurities which lead to corrosion in engines and requires changes in lubricants.

Methanol requires similar safety standards to petrol for fire and explosion hazards.  Overall it has similar toxicity to ethanol but is less volatile than both ethanol and petrol.  It biodegrades quickly if spilled.

The energy density of methanol is lower than existing fuels but higher than alternative fuels.  One litre of methanol contains the same energy as 0.45l petrol, 1.7l of Hydrogen (700 bar), 3,6L of Lithium metal (Li-Po, Li-Hv) battery.

About the Author

Denis Hicks became interested in Energy and Climate Change when he was invited to attend the UN Economic Commission for Europe Committee on Sustainable Energy in 2015 and join the Advisory Board for its Pathways Project.  He formed the view that severe consequences of Climate Change are increasingly inevitable, that the public perception of climate change is characterised by disinterested acceptance and that the policy debate is dominated by the Energy Community.

His professional career has been in the Chemical Industry with senior commercial and business positions in Europe and Asia.  He has acted as an expert project assessor for the European Union’s SPIRE R&D programme.

His current activities are writing on industry issues, management training in the chemical industry (via a not-for–profit business school (EIIL - the European Institute for Industrial Leadership) and occasional consulting projects.

He has a Masters Degree in Engineering from Imperial College.

He has no business or financial interest in any of the matters raised in the Brief and the argument is presented from the point of view of a concerned individual.

August 2018