4 ms·

Backing up the power grid with green methanol

NickM 3y ago
I've definitely wondered about doing similar things with renewable methane generation, which has the advantage of being able to also reuse existing natural gas infrastructure (and therefore lets people keep their precious gas stoves, among other things). Methane does have the downside though of exacerbating climate change if it leaks into the atmosphere, and it takes a lot of energy to cool it down to a liquid, so I can definitely see how methanol might have the edge for grid-scale storage like this.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  You may be aware methane biogas has other problems. It is typically very moist and contains corrosive contaminants. Moisture content can be problematic because the presence of water vapor in biogas can lead to corrosion in pipelines and combustion engines, potentially shortening their lifespan. Moisture in biogas can reduce its calorific value, making it a less efficient than the genuine item. Another issue is the presence of volatile sulfur compounds in biogas. These compounds, contribute to corrosion and also pose environmental and health risks when released into the atmosphere. These problems aren't deal breakers by themselves, but the bottom line, is that when analyzing biogas we've got to take into account the extra capital expense associated with these drawbacks.
  - hommelix 3y ago
    I understood the parent comment as generating renewable methane like methanol, using renewable electricity -> hydrogen (and CO2) -> methane. This doesn't requires bacteries and feedstock in a wet disgester, so it removes the issue with moist and sulfur.
theptip 3y ago
> Overall, they calculated that the cost of electricity from the grids would be between €77 and €94 per megawatt-hour delivered. That is well within the range that grid operators pay today to balance supply and demand via natural gas-fired power plants. Their modeling found that the methanol backup is also 29 to 43 percent cheaper than that of alternate grids backed up with hydrogen Interesting! I’d like to see the comparison with gas peakers. Seems they are on the order of $400/MWh, and utilized something like 5-10%. So if the numbers above are fully-baked including capital cost this seems like a potential big win. On the TANSTAAFL principle, what’s the catch?
- engineer_22 3y ago
  From the article it sounds like it's "potentially" economical, ready for large scale testing. It's also a complex process - they're talking about a closed loop system with a supercritical carbon dioxide carrier stream and direct injection of liquid ox. Lots of pumps and heat exchangers - lots of maintenance. Unclear if they're taking into account all of that in their economic calculations, if they're being a little vague in order to pursue funding. EDIT: I am pro-technology, and not questioning their process. The article does appear to me to be an advertisement.
- vondur 3y ago
  Sorry, had to look up TANSTAFFL... There's no such thing as a free lunch. Totally makes sense now.
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  The Eur77-94 figure is a simulated average whole grid cost of electricity for a hypothetical grid built around renewables and storage only when including some of this type of storage, not the cost of this type of storage. They estimate LCOS for this storage at Eur309-366/MWh according to the article in Joule which is linked. I couldn't immediately see their estimates for cost of wind/solar and other types of storage which feed into the whole grid cost.
photochemsyn 3y ago
This technology has been around for over two decades at least [1], and the reluctance of the Department of Energy and the investor-owned-utility sector to adopt it is really only due to the political pressure applied by the natural-gas sector, as the resulting fall in demand for natural gas would have made fracking for gas uneconomical. Note that both political parties in the USA got behind this fossil fuel agenda, it's entirely bipartisan in nature (the fracking boom took place under Obama, and was continued under Trump, and was boosted by the Ukraine war and sanctions on Russia, which resulted in increased LNG exports to Europe). [1] "Methanol synthesis from flue-gas CO2 and renewable electricity: a feasibility study" (2003) (available in full on sci-hub) > "This paper describes a novel but proven process (CO2+3H2→CH3OH+H2O) which could be adapted to use, as input reagents, CO2 emitted from fossil-fuelled power stations and hydrogen from electrolysis of water by a zero-emissions electricity source, e.g. renewable and/or nuclear energy. This approach, in addition to addressing the above two issues, would produce methanol for which there is a ready and expanding market." One generally solid conclusion is that the countries that have to import fossil fuels are going to be the ones leading in transitioning off fossil fuels, and as expected, China is ahead in this technological sector as well: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/30/1060508/china-betting-methanol-cars/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/30/1060508/china-be...
- engineer_22 3y ago
  If I'm understanding correctly, the innovation touted in the article is not the Methanol electrolysis, but the Allam combustion cycle which sequesters the CO2 byproduct. Maybe they are taking carbon capture credit into their accounting, since nowhere do they mention the efficiency of the Allam cycle.
rob74 3y ago
I'm definitely no expert here, but... "Storing" electricity using H2 is relatively straightforward: use electricity to electrolize water and get H2 (and O2), store the H2 (presumably liquefied) and then burn it to either generate electricity again or to power existing energy-intensive processes (e.g. smelting iron ore). Not sure how efficient the electricity -> H2 -> electricity conversion is, but ok... Now, if you use methanol, you get the H2 like before, then "make it react" with CO2 (and CO2 is not really eager to react with anything IIRC) to get methanol, and then you burn it, getting CO2 which has to react with more H2 or otherwise you wouldn't be carbon neutral. Sounds to me like this process can only be less efficient (and more complicated) than the H2 process? Potentially much less efficient and much more complicated?
- tomatocracy 3y ago
  Where synthetic liquids (and indeed methane) can be interesting is if you want to ship the energy somewhere. So you can make the methanol somewhere with abundant cheap electricity and CO2, then ship or pipe it to places which lack that. It's a lot easier and cheaper to transport methanol or methane (either piped or in the form of LNG) than H2 since it takes a lot leas space and we already have a lot of infrastructure for it.
  - kwhitefoot 3y ago
    In the long run it is cheaper to transport the energy as electricity.
    - tomatocracy 3y ago
      That depends on the distances involved - eg if you want to generate cheap solar electricity in the Middle East or South America and export it to Europe or North America (which is something people in the industry have discussed as being potentially economical in the long term) this isn't really practical.
- kippinitreal 3y ago
  My amateur understanding is that the benefits are: A) H2 is exceptionally difficult to store at scale. Salt caverns are an option, but that is limited B) methanol can be used off the shelf by existing generators so the prices are much more economical and they can use both fuels during a transitory period
hannob 3y ago
FWIW, I had also written about this paper: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/should-we-burn-methanol-when-the-wind-does-not-blow.html https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/should-we-burn-meth...
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Please forgive the almost-off-topic question, but I've been curious for years and can never find a straight answer. Is there no microbe out there that will ferment sugar/starch into methanol? I once found a paper on methanol poisonings in the developing world which didn't seem deliberate, and the authors suggested there were some opportunistic yeast that might be the culprit. High energy chemistry to make methanol just seems to almost miss the point.
- msandford 3y ago
  There probably is one out there somewhere. But there are many that ferment to ethanol and those are looked after and can probably out compete the methanol in most situations. Honestly if you're just trying to store energy going to ethanol is fine too. It'll burn just fine provided you've dehydrated it enough.
- megaman821 3y ago
  It almost doesn't matter. These bio processes are only good for generating a small amount of the energy we need, but as you get to volume there is a need to add fertilizer in the mix. Fertilizer uses fossil fuels and energy to make, thereby negating any gains of the bio process over just using the fossil fuels and energy directly.
- DFHippie 3y ago
  You can't feed microbes the surplus energy from your wind or solar farm, though.
  - ephbit 3y ago
    > Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) is a significantly sustainable bio-electrochemical system for biological hydrogen production. MEC is also regarded as an environmentally friendly method for producing clean biohydrogen from a variety of waste organic matters and for its low greenhouse gas emissions. This technology involves the oxidation of organic matter at the anode and the reduction of proton at the cathode under the nominal external voltage supply. However, bio-hydrogen production efficiency and operating costs of MEC still need further optimization to implement in large-scale applications. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894722060156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13858...
rapjr9 3y ago
Methanol is extremely flammable, it's vapor is heavier than air at lower temperatures, it can float on water, and the flame is invisible, so leaks could create big problems. But industry already has a lot of experience handling methanol: https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/1145045 https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere... https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/33636_en/?lang=en https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/3363...

I've definitely wondered about doing similar things with renewable methane generation, which has the advantage of being able to also reuse existing natural gas infrastructure (and therefore lets people keep their precious gas stoves, among other things). Methane does have the downside though of exacerbating climate change if it leaks into the atmosphere, and it takes a lot of energy to cool it down to a liquid, so I can definitely see how methanol might have the edge for grid-scale storage like this.

engineer_22 3y ago
You may be aware methane biogas has other problems. It is typically very moist and contains corrosive contaminants. Moisture content can be problematic because the presence of water vapor in biogas can lead to corrosion in pipelines and combustion engines, potentially shortening their lifespan. Moisture in biogas can reduce its calorific value, making it a less efficient than the genuine item. Another issue is the presence of volatile sulfur compounds in biogas. These compounds, contribute to corrosion and also pose environmental and health risks when released into the atmosphere. These problems aren't deal breakers by themselves, but the bottom line, is that when analyzing biogas we've got to take into account the extra capital expense associated with these drawbacks.
- hommelix 3y ago
  I understood the parent comment as generating renewable methane like methanol, using renewable electricity -> hydrogen (and CO2) -> methane. This doesn't requires bacteries and feedstock in a wet disgester, so it removes the issue with moist and sulfur.

theptip 3y ago

> Overall, they calculated that the cost of electricity from the grids would be between €77 and €94 per megawatt-hour delivered. That is well within the range that grid operators pay today to balance supply and demand via natural gas-fired power plants. Their modeling found that the methanol backup is also 29 to 43 percent cheaper than that of alternate grids backed up with hydrogen Interesting! I’d like to see the comparison with gas peakers. Seems they are on the order of $400/MWh, and utilized something like 5-10%. So if the numbers above are fully-baked including capital cost this seems like a potential big win. On the TANSTAAFL principle, what’s the catch?

engineer_22 3y ago
From the article it sounds like it's "potentially" economical, ready for large scale testing. It's also a complex process - they're talking about a closed loop system with a supercritical carbon dioxide carrier stream and direct injection of liquid ox. Lots of pumps and heat exchangers - lots of maintenance. Unclear if they're taking into account all of that in their economic calculations, if they're being a little vague in order to pursue funding. EDIT: I am pro-technology, and not questioning their process. The article does appear to me to be an advertisement.
vondur 3y ago
Sorry, had to look up TANSTAFFL... There's no such thing as a free lunch. Totally makes sense now.
tomatocracy 3y ago
The Eur77-94 figure is a simulated average whole grid cost of electricity for a hypothetical grid built around renewables and storage only when including some of this type of storage, not the cost of this type of storage. They estimate LCOS for this storage at Eur309-366/MWh according to the article in Joule which is linked. I couldn't immediately see their estimates for cost of wind/solar and other types of storage which feed into the whole grid cost.

photochemsyn 3y ago

This technology has been around for over two decades at least [1], and the reluctance of the Department of Energy and the investor-owned-utility sector to adopt it is really only due to the political pressure applied by the natural-gas sector, as the resulting fall in demand for natural gas would have made fracking for gas uneconomical. Note that both political parties in the USA got behind this fossil fuel agenda, it's entirely bipartisan in nature (the fracking boom took place under Obama, and was continued under Trump, and was boosted by the Ukraine war and sanctions on Russia, which resulted in increased LNG exports to Europe). [1] "Methanol synthesis from flue-gas CO2 and renewable electricity: a feasibility study" (2003) (available in full on sci-hub) > "This paper describes a novel but proven process (CO2+3H2→CH3OH+H2O) which could be adapted to use, as input reagents, CO2 emitted from fossil-fuelled power stations and hydrogen from electrolysis of water by a zero-emissions electricity source, e.g. renewable and/or nuclear energy. This approach, in addition to addressing the above two issues, would produce methanol for which there is a ready and expanding market." One generally solid conclusion is that the countries that have to import fossil fuels are going to be the ones leading in transitioning off fossil fuels, and as expected, China is ahead in this technological sector as well: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/30/1060508/china-betting-methanol-cars/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/30/1060508/china-be...

engineer_22 3y ago
If I'm understanding correctly, the innovation touted in the article is not the Methanol electrolysis, but the Allam combustion cycle which sequesters the CO2 byproduct. Maybe they are taking carbon capture credit into their accounting, since nowhere do they mention the efficiency of the Allam cycle.

rob74 3y ago

I'm definitely no expert here, but... "Storing" electricity using H2 is relatively straightforward: use electricity to electrolize water and get H2 (and O2), store the H2 (presumably liquefied) and then burn it to either generate electricity again or to power existing energy-intensive processes (e.g. smelting iron ore). Not sure how efficient the electricity -> H2 -> electricity conversion is, but ok... Now, if you use methanol, you get the H2 like before, then "make it react" with CO2 (and CO2 is not really eager to react with anything IIRC) to get methanol, and then you burn it, getting CO2 which has to react with more H2 or otherwise you wouldn't be carbon neutral. Sounds to me like this process can only be less efficient (and more complicated) than the H2 process? Potentially much less efficient and much more complicated?

tomatocracy 3y ago
Where synthetic liquids (and indeed methane) can be interesting is if you want to ship the energy somewhere. So you can make the methanol somewhere with abundant cheap electricity and CO2, then ship or pipe it to places which lack that. It's a lot easier and cheaper to transport methanol or methane (either piped or in the form of LNG) than H2 since it takes a lot leas space and we already have a lot of infrastructure for it.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  In the long run it is cheaper to transport the energy as electricity.
  - tomatocracy 3y ago
    That depends on the distances involved - eg if you want to generate cheap solar electricity in the Middle East or South America and export it to Europe or North America (which is something people in the industry have discussed as being potentially economical in the long term) this isn't really practical.
kippinitreal 3y ago
My amateur understanding is that the benefits are: A) H2 is exceptionally difficult to store at scale. Salt caverns are an option, but that is limited B) methanol can be used off the shelf by existing generators so the prices are much more economical and they can use both fuels during a transitory period

hannob 3y ago

FWIW, I had also written about this paper: https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/should-we-burn-methanol-when-the-wind-does-not-blow.html https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/should-we-burn-meth...

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Please forgive the almost-off-topic question, but I've been curious for years and can never find a straight answer. Is there no microbe out there that will ferment sugar/starch into methanol? I once found a paper on methanol poisonings in the developing world which didn't seem deliberate, and the authors suggested there were some opportunistic yeast that might be the culprit. High energy chemistry to make methanol just seems to almost miss the point.

msandford 3y ago
There probably is one out there somewhere. But there are many that ferment to ethanol and those are looked after and can probably out compete the methanol in most situations. Honestly if you're just trying to store energy going to ethanol is fine too. It'll burn just fine provided you've dehydrated it enough.
megaman821 3y ago
It almost doesn't matter. These bio processes are only good for generating a small amount of the energy we need, but as you get to volume there is a need to add fertilizer in the mix. Fertilizer uses fossil fuels and energy to make, thereby negating any gains of the bio process over just using the fossil fuels and energy directly.
DFHippie 3y ago
You can't feed microbes the surplus energy from your wind or solar farm, though.
- ephbit 3y ago
  > Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) is a significantly sustainable bio-electrochemical system for biological hydrogen production. MEC is also regarded as an environmentally friendly method for producing clean biohydrogen from a variety of waste organic matters and for its low greenhouse gas emissions. This technology involves the oxidation of organic matter at the anode and the reduction of proton at the cathode under the nominal external voltage supply. However, bio-hydrogen production efficiency and operating costs of MEC still need further optimization to implement in large-scale applications. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894722060156 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13858...

rapjr9 3y ago

Methanol is extremely flammable, it's vapor is heavier than air at lower temperatures, it can float on water, and the flame is invisible, so leaks could create big problems. But industry already has a lot of experience handling methanol: https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/1145045 https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere... https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/33636_en/?lang=en https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/3363...