All chemicals can be produced from CO2 if you pour in a lot of energy (electricity or hydrogen) to reanimate this thermodynamically “dead molecule”. Knowing that technologies with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) smaller than 7 can never be fully commercialized at industrial scale by 2050, the focus should be on DMC, methanol, methane and formic acid to contribute materially to a Net Zero and Circular chemical industry by 2050. The good news is that e-methanol (TRL 9) is/can be made available at industrial scale and can be converted into olefins via the TRL 9 Methanol to Olefins (MTO) process. From ethylene and propylene alone more than 60% of all chemicals and polymers can be produced. Although e-methanol is great, I expect waste-based methanol (via gasification of plastic waste and/or bio-waste) to be economically more viable than e-methanol for the coming decade. Link to the research paper: https://lnkd.in/e3DaeFJP #carbondioxide #feedstock #renewablecarbon #methanol #hydrogen #feedstocktransition #chemicalindustry #netzero #circular #renewables
Methanol from biomass is back to the future. Chemicals used to be made from gasification or pyrolysis of wood. That was when we had half a billion population and were not industrialized. We are 8 billion and heavily industrialized. Let’s give up on the idea of using wood for energy and chemicals. Find non-fossil fuel sources of energy. Then use hydrocarbons for chemicals. It will be sustainable.
This statement seems overbroad, freezing innovation at a moment in time, suggesting that innovation and commercialization progress is always linear, and that 2050 is the only endpoint that matters for energy and manufacturing innovation. The analysis may offer insights into areas of particular opportunity, but some may interpret this as suggesting that R&D should only focus on that small number chemistries, which would be a mistake. "Knowing that technologies with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) smaller than 7 can never be fully commercialized at industrial scale by 2050, the focus should be on DMC, methanol, methane and formic acid to contribute materially to a Net Zero and Circular chemical industry by 2050."
Steven Gust
6d
Gasifying then cleaning up the gas for the synthesis can be done but is very expensive. But just a reminder to everyone that e-methanol is a biofuel as the CO2 must be biogenic. The forestry industry has a lot of CO2 from bark but I doubt they will give it away. So surely go for e-methanol to jet but the price will be so high it might be hard to sell. And just because some demented politician mandates that airlines to buy it doesn't mean they will.
Dear Reinier Grimbergen - thank you. Can you explain the basis of this comment please: "Knowing that technologies with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) smaller than 7 can never be fully commercialized at industrial scale by 2050.“ Happy Advent. Steve H
Kris Wadrop
5d
Hi Reinier Grimbergen, there are opportunities to rebalance the fisher tropical technology to produce a wider range of chemicals, more approximating crude. This would qualify as higher trl. Our challenge is optimisation, everyone wants everything optimised. The FT process has been optimised for Kerosene etc but has huge potential to be reverse engineered to produce molecules like aromatics. This work has already been done and was considered a negative result so dismissed (I have data from sasol). From my limited research many of todays questions were answered in the 1970's and have since been forgotten. We don't need to reinvent every wheel, dusting off old lab books would be a good starting point asking reframed questions. I agree with your point about methanol/ethanol as base feedstocks/building blocks. Great note. K.
Reinier, thank you. This is a very interesting chart. I agree with you on methanol and MTO. I believe that a combination of e-methanol and biomethanol, produced via biomass/waste gasification, biomass/waste gasification with added renewable hydrogen, and biomethane reforming, will shape the future renewable methanol supply. However, I’m curious—why do you think the development of e-methane will contribute to a Net Zero and Circular chemical industry? Currently, methane in the chemical industry is mainly used to produce methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen, or for generating steam and electricity. But it does not make sense to use e-methane for these purposes.
Plastic-waste sourced CO2 is of fossil origin. Hence reusing it only causes a one time reuse. The resulting methanol cannot be called sustainable.
Reinier Grimbergen, actually it's 'almost' dead (if by dead you mean all reactions are endothermic). It will react exothermically with at least three things: 1) very slowly with Mg, Ca and Fe silicates => carbonates, 2) not much faster with Ca & Mg carbonates => bicarbinate solutions, and 3) very rapidly with magnesium metal producing an intense flame => MgO + C. https://youtu.be/2oQ_9nFe9HU?si=YDVjM7yJq8ZrYfkh
So, have you finally cracked the mystery of those high energy prices?
Dear Reinier You make a valid argument but MTO using green hydrogen and CO2 from direct air capture is always going to be very capital intensive and inefficient and therefore very expensive. Fighting thermodynamics is going to be expensive. A more conventional alternative is to use crude oil to chemicals where the energy is supplied using renewable electricity. BASF is already converting some of their steam crackers to using electricity rather than burning fossil fuel. The possibility of still using crude oil for chemicals which are not burned perhaps merits consideration.