Successful demonstration of FlexMethanol conversion of wind power to methanol
11 June 2020
In Germany, BSE Engineering and the Institute for Renewable Energy Systems at Stralsund University of Applied Sciences (IRES) have demonstrated the conversion of wind power into renewable methanol. Operation of this technology under dynamic conditions will be confirmed during a year-long test.
The team uses green electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in an electrolysis step. The hydrogen is then converted to methanol using a suitable carbon dioxide source such as flue gas in a specially developed process (FlexMethanol). Methanol is a crucial base chemical; it can be used as a fuel directly, or be processed into fuel substitutes and additives such as MTBE, DME and bio diesel.
FlexMethanol
In the future, the fuel-cell-suitable crude methanol as well as the cleaned methanol will be sold industrially as e-fuel. The special feature of FlexMethanol systems from BSE is the mode of operation that is adapted to the electricity supply starting from CO2 separation, alkaline electrolysis up to distillation.
—Christian Schweitzer, managing director of BSE
Prof. Dr. Johannes Gulden, Director of IRES, said that based on the reduced wind power in 2016 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, up to 34,800 t of methanol could have been produced.
The facility in Stralsund is equipped with a tube bundle reactor for the chemical synthesis at 240°C and 40 bar using a recycle loop of the non-converted synthesis gas. A maximum capacity of 28 liters crude methanol per day is achieved. The first samples of methanol have now been produced from electricity.
Beside continuous evaluation of relevant parameters such as temperature, pressure and hydrogen as well as carbon dioxide stream, the amount and composition of gas phase and liquid products is systematically being investigated. The first analysis approves high purity of the produced crude methanol.
Development of larger plants is under way. The final results of the project with IRES will be available in line with the commissioning of the plants.
Meaning fossil carbon which still becomes GHG emissions.
WHY are there so many "greens" who Just Don't Get It?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 11 June 2020 at 09:01 AM
Why is it some don't get reusing carbon reduces emissions...
Posted by: SJC_1 | 11 June 2020 at 09:42 AM
Makes more sense then using hydrogen as a "fuel"
fossil carbon which still becomes GHG emissions whether you use it or NOT.
Posted by: dursun | 11 June 2020 at 10:01 AM
Why is it some people don't get that reusing fossil carbon once STILL doesn't keep it out of the atmosphere?
Why is it some people don't get that capturing and converting CO2 back to fuel requires more energy than the fuel yielded in the first place, raising the question of just where you get the energy to do this?
And why is it that someone so scientifically illiterate even posts here?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 11 June 2020 at 03:11 PM
Doesn't matter too much where the CO2 comes from at this moment. Fossil fuel will be uneconomical soon anyway, so more ecologically sound sources will eventually be used.
It's good this tech is developped for industrial production of chemicals (and some fuels) from air-captured CO2 in the future.
Also exhaust from waste or biomass incinerators is a flue gas.
Pyrolysis of biomass is great for carbon sequestration but still produces also CO2.
This could also be used.
Cement production, even when using renewable or nuclear heat, produces lots of CO2. this can be turned into plastics via methanol.
Posted by: Alain | 12 June 2020 at 10:27 AM
Reusing any CO2 means that the produced fuel is zero-emissions and the car/drone/generator/whatever using it is a true zero-emissions product. Whether the CO2 came from flue gas or the ocean or a cement plan is irrelevant. If there is zero CO2 flue gas because somehow we have converted all these industrial processes to...(to what?) from fossil fuels, then it will be from a cement plant, and if that is zero too, it will be from the ocean. These "ifs" are interesting 2050 scenarios. In the meantime, zero-emissions liquid fuel solves a variety of problems like heavy-duty tracks, aviation, off-grid power, energy storage. Also it is equivalent to green hydrogen (hydrogen+co2=methanol) but without the 100x cost of a hydrogen delivery, storage, dispensing infra (which the developing world will not be able to afford for many decades). As for "where will the extra energy come from" there is way too much potential sun and wind energy. If you really want to solve the environment problem we really need mass production of renewable fuels.
Posted by: Chris Kaskavelis | 13 June 2020 at 04:43 AM
Reusing any CO2 means that the produced fuel is zero-emissions and the car/drone/generator/whatever using it is a true zero-emissions product. Whether the CO2 came from flue gas or the ocean or a cement plan is irrelevant. If there is zero CO2 flue gas because somehow we have converted all these industrial processes to...(to what?) from fossil fuels, then it will be from a cement plant, and if that is zero too, it will be from the ocean. These "ifs" are interesting 2050 scenarios. In the meantime, zero-emissions liquid fuel solves a variety of problems like heavy-duty trucks, aviation, off-grid power, energy storage. Also it is equivalent to green hydrogen (hydrogen+co2=methanol) but without the 100x cost of a hydrogen delivery, storage, dispensing infra (which the developing world will not be able to afford for many decades). As for "where will the extra energy come from" there is way too much potential sun and wind energy. If you really want to solve the environment problem we really need mass production of renewable fuels.
Posted by: Chris Kaskavelis | 13 June 2020 at 04:44 AM
uneconomical soon anyway...
Care to put money on when this will happen?
Did not think so.
Posted by: SJC_1 | 13 June 2020 at 07:24 AM