Reading through this seems that they are just using carbon dioxide and hydrogen produced from water (theoretically from green power sources) to convert to methanol, and later burning it to generate electricity? Wouldn’t this essentially be burning through somewhat non-renewable water to create fuel? And the carbon capture seems to be an additional, nonrequired step. Or am I missing something?
The combustion of methanol produce less C02 than natural gas.
The idea here is that methanol would be stored for times the renewable grid wasn’t producing enough electricity.
How often would that happen? It would vary a lot depending on other factors. Australia has enough sun to never need an option like this. How often would Germany use it? Depends again. How much other grid storage options might they have - pumped hydro, lithium batteries, etc, etc
The use of methanol is mainly intended as a means to decarbonise shipping more than storage. It’s an alternative to using directly hydrogen or amonia.
Methanol in this case would be combined with renewable generated hydrogen and with carbon capture either from industrial or power generation. Combustion will of course yield CO2 and water.
Are the only yields co2 and water? That is my main concern, as I’d guess making methanol in mass would require quite large quantities of fresh water and if the yield is lossy, then you would lose a lot of fresh water. I get it is probably much cleaner than most of the fuel that shipping uses, but it does establish a precedent of converting fresh water to fuel (admittedly while capturing co2).
There would be some minor treatment for the water I imagine, cause after all combustion always leave some traces of dust, and the addition of additives to make demineralised water conductive for electrolisis.
Reading through this seems that they are just using carbon dioxide and hydrogen produced from water (theoretically from green power sources) to convert to methanol, and later burning it to generate electricity? Wouldn’t this essentially be burning through somewhat non-renewable water to create fuel? And the carbon capture seems to be an additional, nonrequired step. Or am I missing something?
The combustion of methanol produce less C02 than natural gas.
The idea here is that methanol would be stored for times the renewable grid wasn’t producing enough electricity.
How often would that happen? It would vary a lot depending on other factors. Australia has enough sun to never need an option like this. How often would Germany use it? Depends again. How much other grid storage options might they have - pumped hydro, lithium batteries, etc, etc
That’s exactly it.
The use of methanol is mainly intended as a means to decarbonise shipping more than storage. It’s an alternative to using directly hydrogen or amonia.
Methanol in this case would be combined with renewable generated hydrogen and with carbon capture either from industrial or power generation. Combustion will of course yield CO2 and water.
Are the only yields co2 and water? That is my main concern, as I’d guess making methanol in mass would require quite large quantities of fresh water and if the yield is lossy, then you would lose a lot of fresh water. I get it is probably much cleaner than most of the fuel that shipping uses, but it does establish a precedent of converting fresh water to fuel (admittedly while capturing co2).
Yes CO2 and Water. Methanol is CH3-OH.
There would be some minor treatment for the water I imagine, cause after all combustion always leave some traces of dust, and the addition of additives to make demineralised water conductive for electrolisis.
I don’t have the exact chemical formulas for methanol in front of me, but I’ll bet burning methanol in air gives you water as a byproduct.
According to the YouTube video I just watched water is a by product of methanol combustion along with CO2