“…It is expected that the cost of DAC will drop significantly in the following decades, as shown in Figure 5 , which compares the CapEx learning curves of DAC and CCU at a learning rate of 12.5%. These are calculated based on ( Equation 2 ) and ( Equation 3 ) (can be found in the method details section) with input data from Refs ( Fasihi et al., 2019 ; Keith et al., 2018 ; Nyári, 2018 ; Collodi et al., 2017 ; Wilberforce et al., 2020 ; Rosa et al, 2020 ), as shown in Table 3 . Figure 5 Project CapEx learning curves for CO 2 capture by direct air capture (DAC) and carbon capture unit (CCU) Typically, for conservative scenarios, it is assumed that only 50% of CO 2 capture demand defined by the Paris Agreement is realized, and the CapEx for DAC and CCU has a learning rate of 10%.…”
Section: Hydrogen Storage By Circular Hydrogen Carriersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The synthesis loop of methanol also consists of different components such as a reactor, boiler, series of heat exchangers, flash separators, distillation columns, and compressors. Cost information has been extracted from ( Van-Dal and Bouallou, 2012 , 2013 ; Keith et al., 2018 ; Collodi et al., 2017 ; Nyári, 2018 ) and listed in Table 1 B. Afterward, we have calculated the capital cost of methanol's major hydrogenation system components using ( Equation 1 ).…”
Section: Hydrogen Storage By Circular Hydrogen Carriersmentioning
Summary
Large-scale stationary hydrogen storage is critical if hydrogen is to fulfill its promise as a global energy carrier. While densified storage via compressed gas and liquid hydrogen is currently the dominant approach, liquid organic molecules have emerged as a favorable storage medium because of their desirable properties, such as low cost and compatibility with existing fuel transport infrastructure. This perspective article analytically investigates hydrogenation systems' technical and economic prospects using liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) to store hydrogen at a large scale compared to densified storage technologies and circular hydrogen carriers (mainly ammonia and methanol). Our analysis of major system components indicates that the capital cost for liquid hydrogen storage is more than two times that for the gaseous approach and four times that for the LOHC approach. Ammonia and methanol could be attractive options as hydrogen carriers at a large scale because of their compatibility with existing liquid fuel infrastructure. However, their synthesis and decomposition are energy and capital intensive compared to LOHCs. Together with other properties such as safety, these factors make LOHCs a possible option for large-scale stationary hydrogen storage. In addition, hydrogen transportation via various approaches is briefly discussed. We end our discussions by identifying important directions for future research on LOHCs.
“…It is expected that the cost of DAC will drop significantly in the following decades, as shown in Figure 5 , which compares the CapEx learning curves of DAC and CCU at a learning rate of 12.5%. These are calculated based on ( Equation 2 ) and ( Equation 3 ) (can be found in the method details section) with input data from Refs ( Fasihi et al., 2019 ; Keith et al., 2018 ; Nyári, 2018 ; Collodi et al., 2017 ; Wilberforce et al., 2020 ; Rosa et al, 2020 ), as shown in Table 3 . Figure 5 Project CapEx learning curves for CO 2 capture by direct air capture (DAC) and carbon capture unit (CCU) Typically, for conservative scenarios, it is assumed that only 50% of CO 2 capture demand defined by the Paris Agreement is realized, and the CapEx for DAC and CCU has a learning rate of 10%.…”
Section: Hydrogen Storage By Circular Hydrogen Carriersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The synthesis loop of methanol also consists of different components such as a reactor, boiler, series of heat exchangers, flash separators, distillation columns, and compressors. Cost information has been extracted from ( Van-Dal and Bouallou, 2012 , 2013 ; Keith et al., 2018 ; Collodi et al., 2017 ; Nyári, 2018 ) and listed in Table 1 B. Afterward, we have calculated the capital cost of methanol's major hydrogenation system components using ( Equation 1 ).…”
Section: Hydrogen Storage By Circular Hydrogen Carriersmentioning
Summary
Large-scale stationary hydrogen storage is critical if hydrogen is to fulfill its promise as a global energy carrier. While densified storage via compressed gas and liquid hydrogen is currently the dominant approach, liquid organic molecules have emerged as a favorable storage medium because of their desirable properties, such as low cost and compatibility with existing fuel transport infrastructure. This perspective article analytically investigates hydrogenation systems' technical and economic prospects using liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) to store hydrogen at a large scale compared to densified storage technologies and circular hydrogen carriers (mainly ammonia and methanol). Our analysis of major system components indicates that the capital cost for liquid hydrogen storage is more than two times that for the gaseous approach and four times that for the LOHC approach. Ammonia and methanol could be attractive options as hydrogen carriers at a large scale because of their compatibility with existing liquid fuel infrastructure. However, their synthesis and decomposition are energy and capital intensive compared to LOHCs. Together with other properties such as safety, these factors make LOHCs a possible option for large-scale stationary hydrogen storage. In addition, hydrogen transportation via various approaches is briefly discussed. We end our discussions by identifying important directions for future research on LOHCs.
“…ASU accounts for 30% of the costs and therefore this design is impractical for smaller units. In addition to safety issues, at the scale considered in this manuscript, ASU is uneconomical [20,21]. Dong et al compared GtL to LNG technology with sales volumes of 5 Mt to 6 Mt [22].…”
Methane is the second highest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Its global warming potential is 37 times that of CO2. Flaring-associated natural gas from remote oil reservoirs is currently the only economical alternative. Gas-to-liquid (GtL) technologies first convert natural gas into syngas, then it into liquids such as methanol, Fischer–Tropsch fuels or dimethyl ether. However, studies on the influence of feedstock composition are sparse, which also poses technical design challenges. Here, we examine the techno-economic analysis of a micro-refinery unit (MRU) that partially oxidizes methane-rich feedstocks and polymerizes the syngas formed via Fischer–Tropsch reaction. We consider three methane-containing waste gases: natural gas, biogas, and landfill gas. The FT fuel selling price is critical for the economy of the unit. A Monte Carlo simulation assesses the influence of the composition on the final product quantity as well as on the capital and operative expenses. The Aspen Plus simulation and Python calculate the net present value and payback time of the MRU for different price scenarios. The CO2 content in biogas and landfill gas limit the CO/H2 ratio to 1.3 and 0.9, respectively, which increases the olefins content of the final product. Compressors are the main source of capital cost while the labor cost represents 20–25% of the variable cost. An analysis of the impact of the plant dimension demonstrated that the higher number represents a favorable business model for this unit. A minimal production of 7,300,000 kg y−1 is required for MRU to have a positive net present value after 10 years when natural gas is the feedstock.
Summary
One of the main challenges facing power generation by fuel cells involves the difficulties related to hydrogen storage. Several methods have been suggested and studied by researchers to overcome this problem. Among these methods, using fuel reformers as a component of the fuel cell system is a practical and promising alternative to hydrogen storage. Among many hydrogen carrier fuels used in reformers, methanol is one of the most attractive ones because of its distinctive properties. To design and improve of the methanol reformate gas fuel cell systems, different aspects such as promising market applications for reformate gas–fueled fuel cell systems, and catalysts for methanol reforming should be considered. Therefore, our goal in this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview on the past and recent studies regarding methanol reforming technologies, while considering different aspects of this topic. Firstly, different fuel reforming processes are briefly explained in the first section of the paper. Then properties of various fuels and reforming of these fuels are compared, and the characteristics of commercial reformate gas–fueled systems are presented. The main objective of the first section of the paper is to give information about studies and market applications related to reformation of various fuels to understand advantages and disadvantages of using various fuels for different practical applications. In the next sections of the paper, advancements in the methanol reforming technology are explained. The methanol reforming catalysts and reaction kinetics studies by various researchers are reviewed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each catalyst are discussed, followed by presenting the studies accomplished on different types of reformers. The effects of operating parameters on methanol reforming are also discussed. In the last section of this paper, methanol reformate gas–fueled fuel cell systems are reviewed. Overall, this review paper provides insight to researchers on what has been accomplished so far in the field of methanol reforming for fuel cell power generation applications to better plan the next stage of studies in this field.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
