Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Methanol Pathways from the GREET Model
Michael Wang and Uisung LeeArgonne National Laboratory
Workshop on Opportunities and Challenges for Methanol as a Liquid Energy Carrier
Stanford University, July 31-Aug. 1, 2017
1
2
The GREET® (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) model
GREET 1 model:
Fuel-cycle (or well-to-wheels, WTW) modeling of
vehicle/fuel systems
Stochastic
Simulation Tool
Carbon Calculator for Land
Use Change from Biofuels
(CCLUB)
GR
EE
T 2
mo
de
l:
Ve
hic
le c
ycle
mo
de
ling fo
r ve
hic
les
(Available at www.greet.es.anl.gov)
GREET outputs for LCA of vehicles and energy systems
Energy use (Total energy / Fossil energy / Renewable energy)
Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
Air pollutants
– VOC, CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, Black Carbon and Organic Carbon
Water consumption
GREET LCA functional units
– Per mile driven
– Per unit of energy (million Btu, MJ, gasoline gallon equivalent)
– Other units (such as per ton of biomass)
3
GREET Includes All Transportation Subsectors
4
• Desire to control air pollution in ports globally
• Interest by EPA, local governments, IMO
• GREET includes
Ocean and inland water transportation
Baseline diesel and alternative marine fuels
• Globally, a fast growing sector with GHG
reduction pressure
• Interest by DOD, ICAO, FAA, and commercial
airlines
• GREET includes
Passenger and freight transportation
Various alternative fuels blended with
petroleum jet fuels
• Light-duty vehicles
• Medium-duty vehicles
• Heavy-duty vehicles
• Various powertrains:
Internal Combustion
Engines
Electrics
Fuel cells
• Interest by FRA,
railroad companies
• Potential for CNG/LNG
to displace diesel
Road
transportation
Air
transportation
Rail
transportation
Marine
transportation
GREET1 examines more than 80 on-road vehicle/fuel systems for both
LDVs and HDVs
Conventional Spark-Ignition Engine Vehicles
4 Gasoline
4 Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas,
and liquefied petroleum gas
4 Gaseous and liquid hydrogen
4 Methanol and ethanol
Spark-Ignition, Direct-Injection Engine
Vehicles
4 Gasoline
4 Methanol and ethanol
Compression-Ignition, Direct-Injection
Engine Vehicles
4 Diesel
4 Fischer-Tropsch diesel
4 Dimethyl ether
4 Biodiesel
Fuel Cell Vehicles
4 On-board hydrogen storage
– Gaseous and liquid hydrogen from
various sources
4 On-board hydrocarbon reforming to hydrogen
Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles
4 Various electricity generation sources
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)
4 Spark-ignition engines:
– Gasoline
– Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural
gas, and liquefied petroleum gas
– Gaseous and liquid hydrogen
– Methanol and ethanol
4 Compression-ignition engines
– Diesel
– Fischer-Tropsch diesel
– Dimethyl ether
– Biodiesel
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
4 Spark-ignition engines:
– Gasoline
– Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural
gas, and liquefied petroleum gas
– Gaseous and liquid hydrogen
– Methanol and ethanol
4 Compression-ignition engines
– Diesel
– Fischer-Tropsch diesel
– Dimethyl ether
– Biodiesel
5
GREET1 includes more than 100 fuel production
pathways from various energy feedstock sources
PetroleumConventional crude
Shale oil
Oil Sands
Compressed Natural Gas
Liquefied Natural Gas
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel
Fischer-Tropsch Naphtha
Hydrogen
Natural GasNorth American
Non-North American
Shale gas
Coal
Surface mining
Underground mining
Soybeans
Palm
Rapeseed
Jatropha
Camelina
Algae
Gasoline
Diesel
Jet Fuel
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Naphtha
Residual Oil
Hydrogen
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Biodiesel
Renewable Diesel
Renewable Gasoline
Renewable Jet Fuel
Sugarcane
Corn
Cellulosic BiomassSwitchgrass
Willow/Poplar
Crop Residues
Forest Residues
Miscanthus
Residual Oil
Coal
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Biomass
Other Renewables
Ethanol
Butanol
Jet fuel
Ethanol
Jet Fuel
Ethanol
Hydrogen
Methanol
Dimethyl Ether
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Fischer-Tropsch Jet
Fuel
Pyro Gasoline/Diesel/Jet
Electricity
Renewable Natural GasLandfill Gas
Animal Waste
Waste water treatment
6
Coke Oven Gas
Petroleum Coke
Nuclear Energy
Electricity from different
sources
Hydrogen
There are nearly 30,000 registered GREET users globally
7
Geographically, 71% in North America, 14% in
Europe, 9% in Asia
57% in academia and research, 33 % in industries,
8% in governments
Methanol can be produced from renewable feedstocks as well as fossil energy sources
Fossil-based methanol:
– Abundant natural gas globally could continue to offer methanol production
opportunity.
– China produces a large amount of methanol from its abundant coal resource.
Potential renewable feedstocks in the U.S. for methanol production:
– Biogas from waste feedstocks (landfilled solid waste, manure, wastewater
treatment plant sludge, etc.)
• Can replace up to 3% of US gasoline consumption (211–370 PJ, 2015)
– Biomass (forest biomass, crop residues, cropland biomass, and energy crops)
• 602 million dry tons of potential resource at $60 per dry ton by 2022 (U.S.
2016 Billion-Ton Study)
8
Examined methanol from NG, RNG, coal, and biomass for FFVs and FCVs
9
Natural gas
Coal
LFG
AD Gas
(Manure)
Biomass
Natural Gas
(conventional and shale)
Landfill
Gas
Biogas
Bio
ga
s
Up
gra
din
gLFG Flaring
Current Manure
Treatment
† Counterfactual Scenarios: practices in absence of
MeOH production
Feedstock
Recovery / Processing
Methanol
Production
Vehicle
Operation
Counterfactual
Scenario†
System Boundary
NG: Natural gas | RNG: Renewable natural gas
FFV: Flexible-fuel vehicle | FCV: Fuel cell vehicle
AD: Anaerobic digestion | LFG: Landfill gas | MeOH: Methanol
RNG
RNG
Me
tha
nol
Pro
du
ctio
n
Coal via
gasificationSyngas
Biomass via
gasificationSyngas
MeOH
FFVs
FCVs
T&D
On
-Bo
ard
Re
form
ing
Methanol can be produced from renewable feedstocks as well as fossil energy sources
Fossil-based methanol:
– Abundant natural gas globally could continue to offer methanol production
opportunity.
– China produces a large amount of methanol from its abundant coal resource.
Potential renewable feedstocks in the U.S. for methanol production:
– Biogas from waste feedstocks (landfilled solid waste, manure, wastewater
treatment plant sludge, etc.)
• Can replace up to 3% of US gasoline consumption (211–370 PJ, 2015)
– Biomass (forest biomass, crop residues, cropland biomass, and energy crops)
• 602 million dry tons of potential resource at $60 per dry ton by 2022 (U.S.
2016 Billion-Ton Study)
10
Key parameters for fossil NG to methanol production pathway
NG recovery and processing
Data source GREET 2016
Overall efficiency 95%
CH4 leakage rate (g/MJ) 0.09
CO2 venting (g/MJ) 0.77
GHG intensity (gCO2e/MJ) 7.6
Methanol production: overall efficiency of 67%
Feed NG input (MJ/MJ) 1.45
Process fuel NG input (MJ/MJ) 0.013
Electricity input (MJ/MJ) 0.040
Steam co-product credit (MJ/MJ) 0.11
Methanol production emissions (grams/GJ)
VOC 0.63
CO 1.13
NOx 0.74
SOx 0.10
CO2 13,200
11
Data for NG recovery and processing includes both conventional NG and shale gas with their production shares.
Avoided energy use and emissions in the counterfactual scenarios for waste-based feedstocks are taken as credits
Energy and emissions for managing waste feedstocks otherwise would be
avoided if waste feedstocks are used for energy production.
Selected counterfactual scenarios:
– LFG case: Landfill gas flaring
– AD gas case: Current manure treatment12
Energy Emissions
Energy Emissions
WASTE
Counterfactual Scenario
(current waste management)
Alternative Fuel Production
Avoided energy use
and emissions
Methanol reforming in MeOH FCVs
MeOH FCVs’ MPGGE is assumed to be
162% higher compared to baseline gasoline
ICEVs in current GREET (Thomas et al.
2000).
– Further WTW GHG emission reduction is
expected (per mile) as MeOH FCVs’ fuel
economy increases.
MeOH FCVs emissions: VOC, CO, and NOx
emissions from methanol reforming are
significantly lower than those of gasoline
vehicles (Thomas et al. 2000).
Nissan is currently promoting ethanol SOFC
FC vehicles (vs. on-board reforming for PEM
FC vehicles before)
13
MPDGE: miles per diesel gallon equivalent
ICEV: Internal combustion engine vehicle
WTW: Well-to-wheels
Veh. Emi: g/mi VOC CO NOx
Gasoline ICEV 0.755 7.553 0.704
Methanol FCV 0.023 0.004 0.001
Relative to
gasoline ICEV 3.0% 0.1% 0.1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Fue
l e
con
om
y (
MP
GG
E)
Model year
Gasoline ICEVs
MeOH FCVs
GREET 2016
186%
MeOH from renewable feedstocks reduces fossil fuel use by 93–100% relative to E10 on a MJ basis
14
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Gasoline
M85 Methanol CNGV ICEV
En
erg
y c
on
su
mp
tio
n b
y t
yp
e
(MJ/M
J)
Coal NG Petroleum Renewable
+21%
Fossil fuel consumption change relative to E10 gasoline
+36%
-73% -72% -68%
+27%
+48%
-100% -98%-93%
Preliminary results
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass
M85 MeOH CNG Gasoline
GH
G e
mis
sio
ns (
gC
O2
e/M
J)
Feedstock Fuel Vehicle Operation Avoided Emission WTW
GHG emissions on a MJ basis
15
LFG Flaring
Emission from Manure
Treatment
Biogenic CO2
• MeOH from renewable feedstocks reduces WTW GHG emissions significantly.
Preliminary results
+4%
+53%
-60%
-110%
-68%
+5%
+71%
-83%
-151%
-93%
GHG emissions change relative to E10 gasoline
CNG: Compressed NG
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Gasoline
MeOH FFV M85 MeOH FCVs CNGV ICEV
GH
G e
mis
sio
ns (
gC
O2
e/m
ile)
Feedstock Fuel Vehicle Operation Avoided Emission WTW
GHG emissions on a mile-driven basis
16
Preliminary results
• M85 FFV relative MPG – 100%; MeOH FCV relative MPG – 162%
• Due to higher fuel economy, FCVs’ WTW GHG emissions are lower than FFVs’
+4%
+53%
-60%
-110%
-68%-35%
+5%
-90%
-132%
-96%
GHG emissions change relative to E10 gasoline vehicles
Other key emerging technology options for methanol production need to be considered
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil-based methanol pathways
– Coal and natural gas feedstocks
– Carbon capture and utilization (CCU)
Electro-fuels
17
Renewable
electricityRenewable
hydrogen
CO2 rom
CCU
Liquid fuels,
including methanol
Conclusions Methanol from fossil sources reduce petroleum use
– NG-based methanol has GHGs similar to gasoline
– Coal-based methanol has GHGs about 70% higher than gasoline
Methanol from renewable feedstocks has both energy and GHG benefits
– Fossil fuel consumption reduction by 93 – 100% relative to gasoline
– GHG emission reduction by 83 – 151% relative to gasoline
– Major reductions:• Use of bio-electricity (Methanol from renewable resources)
• Avoided energy and emissions for counterfactual scenarios (methanol from biogas)
• Biogenic CO2 credits (biomass-derived methanol)
Efficient vehicle technology such as FCVs can further increase energy and emission benefits of
methanol
18
Energy use and GHG emissions for MTBE production(GREET assumes that a ton of MTBE requires 0.697 tons of isobutylene and 0.366 tons of methanol)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass
MeOH MTBE
En
erg
y c
on
su
mp
tio
n b
y t
yp
e
(MJ/M
J)
Coal NG Petroleum Renewable
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass NA NG Coal LFG AD Gas Biomass
MeOH MTBE
GH
G e
mis
sio
ns (
MJ/M
J) WTP PTW WTW
NG and isobutylene
† MTBE’s PTW was estimated using gasoline
reciprocating engine combustion
†
Preliminary results
Baseline petroleum fuel assumptions
U.S. Gasoline and Diesel
– Feedstock recovery
• Oil sands: Cai et al. (2015)
• Shale oils: ANL’s study on Bakken and Eagle Ford
• Crude oil sources by EIA
– Gasoline and diesel refining
• Elgowainy et al. (2014) and Forman et al. (2014)
• Coverage: 70% of US refinery capacity in 2012
21
