Thermodynamic and Techno-Economic Assessments of Green
Methanol Production Through Direct Chemical Looping
AZIZ Laboratory
Energy and Process Integration Engineering
Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo
http://epi.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Innovative methanol production routes from biomass through direct chemical looping processes (CLP) contribute to asustainable and carbon‐neutral society. However, there are very limited studies regarding biomass to green methanol
production in the light of direct CLP. Two methanol production routes based on biomass direct CLP are proposed andcompared in terms of thermodynamic and techno‐economic performances.

Methanol Synthesis Routes Based on Direct CLP
Thesecondmethanolproduction
route(configuration 2) is based on biomass chemicallooping hydrogen production (B‐CLHP). Configuration
1 still has a water gas shift reaction unit and CO2
removal unit despite the elimination of the ASU.
However, in configuration 2, the above twocomponents were substituted as well, as shown in
the following figure:

Methanol is regarded as one of the most promisingenergy carriers because of its high bulk energy
density, ease of transport and storage with alreadybuilt infrastructure, and versatile applications as araw material.
Traditional methanol synthesis uses fossil energy as
the feedstock and consumes considerable energy in
air separation unit (ASU) and surplus CO2 capture.
Methanol production from biomass direct CLP is apromising alternative for green and sustainablemethanol production.
The first methanol production route (configuration 1)
is based on biomass chemical looping gasification (B‐CLG). The primary difference from that of theconventional methanol synthesis system is that theASU is replaced by CLG, as shown in the following
figure:1(Biomass)

75228(Steam)

HWGS

27HE2829

1011(CO2)

9LWGS

12AR

HE53325(Water)

19

2730

31

123234(H2O)

HE5EXP2Comp28(To FR)

42

AR19(Purged gas)
18

HE7

Column20(Recovered gas)

38

Sep3

HX

Combustor
13

Reactor21(Methanol)171622(Water)

15

14

HE635(Air)Comparative thermodynamic and techno‐economic
analyses were conducted to observe thethermodynamic (in energy and exergy efficiencies)and economic (in levelized cost of methanol (LCOM),
net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR),and dynamic payback period (DPP)) performances of
the two routes.

HX

16

1718
HE41143(Fe3O4)

CompReactor

Sep2
2040(Fe, FeO)

3637(N2)

21
Column10(CO2)9(H2O)

SR24(Methanol)3132(N2)

7HE32529(H2, H2O)
HE4 264139(Fe2O3)

15(Water)

Combustor

Sep1
86HE233

Sep123(Recycled gas)
35(Fe, FeO, Fe3O4)

EXP1

Sep2

FR22 (Purged gas)

FR34(Fe2O3)

HE152

14

13
HE3

CO2 removal unit23(Water)
24
43 (CO2, H2O)

626(Water)
4HE13(Syngas)

Pum

1(Biomass)

30(Air)

Expected Results and Future Prospects

VPNMOCL

Process simulation is adopted to design and analysis the system. It is found that both configurations have similar
thermodynamic performances, but configuration 2 has favorable techno‐economic performances. This finding
provides some guidance for practical application of direct CLP based methanol production both technologicallyand economically.
004

4298.8

Loss1

17554

1156.8Purged gas(to SC)

831
238.6

Purged gas

10097

Refinedmethanol001

SCMS&P95615omass

1017554

CLHP

1000.711602.5

5SC11166.8)d()c(565MS&P)
raeY(PPD2noitarugi
fnoCElectricityconsumption)
2noitarugi
fnoC(

Exergy efficiency)%(RRI

1noitarugi
fno
C

0

Energy efficiency

Loss3

Loss2

8 6 4 2 0

Electricity
production

8 6 4 2 0964

PPD

4987.520

0 8 6 4 2 0
2 1 1 1 1 1

Loss1

25

8 6 4 2 0
1 1 1 1 130RRI

Electricityconsumption35)
b()
a(40)
1noitarugi
fnoC(Efficiency (%)

1noitarugi
fnoC

2noitarugi
fnoC

1noitarugi
fno
C01326045

2noitarugi
fnoC

Refinedmethanol1327250)$M(VPN

2noitarugi
fnoC10992

CLG)
t/$(MOCL

1noitarugi
fnoC

Loss3

002omass

551111.2

8 6 4 2 0

Loss20032108

60

0 8 6 4 2 0
2 1 1 1 1 1005

Configuration 1
Configuration 265