IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Mitigation Strategic of Drought in Central
Techno-economic evaluation of CO2 utilization Java Indonesia during Covid-19 Pandemic
Sorja Koesuma, Delfina Azzahra Kusuma
from gas processing facility to blue methanol using and Iis Widya Harmoko

- Modelling of cayenne production in Central

green hydrogen Java using ARIMA-GARCH
Tarno, Sudarno, Dwi Ispriyanti et al.

To cite this article: Tri Martanto et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1261 012035 - An ISM approach for identifying and
analyzing the complexity of beef cattle
farming problems in Central Java
I W Pratama, M A U Muzayyanah, A Astuti
et al.

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 194.225.34.109 on 22/10/2024 at 07:51

International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

Techno-economic evaluation of CO2 utilization from gas

processing facility to blue methanol using green hydrogen

Tri Martanto1,2, Muhammad Nizami1,3, Widodo Wahyu Purwanto1,2,3,*

1SustainableEnergy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424,
Indonesia
2Master Program in Energy System Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok,

16424, Indonesia
3Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424,

Indonesia

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. The CO2 waste gas from the gas industry contributes to global warming hence it needs to be
reduced or further processed. One of the pathways to utilize CO2 produced from the gas industry is used as
a raw material for manufacturing chemicals. This study aims to evaluate techno-economic of CO2
hydrogenation to blue methanol. CO2 sources originated from gas fields located in Central Sulawesi and
Central Java and hydrogen from PV electrolysis. The process system was simulated using Aspen HYSYS
V.12. The technical analysis was performed using CO2 mass consumption, CO2 conversion, and PV area
requirement. The economic analysis was performed using a levelized cost of process. The result shows that
CO2 mass consumption for gas fields in Central Sulawesi and Central Java were 1.45 and 1.42 ton-CO2/
ton-MeOH, respectively. The CO2 conversion was 94.8% and 96.0% for Central Sulawesi and Central Java,
respectively. To produce 1-ton of methanol required PV area of 38,146 m2 in Central Sulawesi and 34,965
m2 in Central Java with methanol production cost in Central Sulawesi and Central Java were 1,960.87 and
1,196.21 $/ton-MeOH, respectively.

1. Introduction

Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1990, CO2 emissions produced by fossil fuels have increased
by about 60% and by 2.7% yearly for the last decade. Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS)
intends to capture CO2 emissions from various sources for example, power plants, industrial processes,
and gas industries to prevent its release to the atmosphere [1]. One of the pathways for the gas industry’s
CO2 waste utilization is used as feed material for the chemical industry, for example, methanol, DME
(dimethyl ether), ammonia, and urea [2]. Currently, methanol demand in the world is increasing.
Referring to IRENA, the annual methanol demand has almost doubled compared to 10 years ago,
reaching 98 million tons (Mt) in 2019, and is predicted to increase to 120 Mt in 2025 and 500 Mt in
2050. More than 60% of methanol is used as a raw material for the manufacture of other chemicals.
About 31% of methanol is used as fuel, is directly used or mixed [3].
One of the methanol production processes from CO2 is the reaction process using hydrogen
(hydrogenation). To prevent additional CO2 emissions, the hydrogen used should come from green
hydrogen, which uses renewable energy power. The process using renewables has the advantages of
being cleaner, less energy-intensive, and more friendly to the environment compared to the conventional
methanol process through CO Syngas [4]. Marlin et al. [4] evaluated technical CO2 utilization from

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

geothermal plant to methanol using renewable energy from grid compared with conventional syngas.
Bos et al. [6] conducted a techno-economic analysis of green methanol using CO2 from direct air capture
(DAC) and hydrogen from wind power electrolysis. Although there have been studies on CO2 utilization
to methanol using renewable energy technically without economics [4, 5], and some of them have been
carried out economically [6, 7], there is still limited available research evaluating the economics aspect
of CO2 hydrogenation processing using green hydrogen to produce methanol with CO2 source from the
gas field. There is also limited available research evaluating the impact of irradiation to the production
cost of methanol in a tropical countries.
The aim of this study is to evaluate techno-economic of the hydrogenation of CO2 from gas
processing facilities located in Central Sulawesi and Central Java to blue methanol using green hydrogen
produced from the PV electrolysis. The techno-economic evaluation provides essential insight to
determine the most promising gas field for producing methanol from their waste gas.

2. Methodology

This study has evaluated the gas field located in Central Sulawesi and Central Java. Methanol plant
capacity depends on the maximum available CO2 source; Central Sulawesi gas field produces CO2 0.25
MMTPY and Central Java gas field CO2 0.26 MMTPY. Hydrogen will be produced by PV electrolysis
equipped with battery. The CO2 and hydrogen are used as feedstock for the methanol synthesis process.
The block flow diagram was shown in Fig.1. Techno-economic utilization CO2 from various gas fields
was analyzed by CO2 conversion, the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and the levelized cost of
methanol (LCOM) of each location.

Fig.1 Block diagram of the system

2.1. Technical Evaluation

2.1.1. PV and Battery

The global tile irradiation (GTI) data were collected in June due to similar to yearly mean data. The data
were collected from GlobalSolarAtlas [8] and RenewablesNinja [9]. The battery type selected was
Lithium Ion (Li-ion) battery. Solar PV and battery specifications are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Solar PV and battery specification

Parameter Unit Value

Solar PV eficiency
(Monocrystalline Silicon) % 19,38%

2
International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

Ground mounted
Solar PV installation - large scale
Battery type - Lithium-ion
Depth of Discharge (DoD) % 100
Efficiency round-trip % 91,8

2.2. Hydrogen production

PEM electrolysis is selected for this study due to high current densities, high voltage efficiency, good
partial load range, and compact system design [10]. The hydrogen production outlet of the PEM
electrolyser is shown in Eq. 1 [7].
,
𝑚 = (0,0009 × 𝑒 ) × ∆𝑃 (1)

Where 𝑚 in µg H2. cm-2 s-1 is the hydrogen mass, T is the temperature in oC and ∆𝑃 in bar is the
pressure differential across anodic and cathodic cells. The power required for the PEM electrolyser is
calculated by Eq. 2 [11].

𝑄 = 𝐼 (𝑉 + 𝑉 +𝑉 + 𝑉 (2)

Where 𝑄 is power (kWh/kg), I = j . 𝐴 is the electric current through the PEM electrolyser and 𝐴 is
the effective surface area of the polar plate.

2.3. Methanol Synthesis

The process reaction CO2 hydrogenation to methanol occurs exothermically with the reactions and
kinetic parameters referred to [12]. Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 was used as a catalyst for the process [12]. The
simulation of hydrogenation CO2 to methanol and all process equipment except the PV electrolyser and
battery were carried out by Aspen HYSYS V.12. Peng-Robinson and nonrandom two-liquid (NRTL)
was used as fluid packages. Plug Flow Reactor type was used for methanol reactor. The process
simulation model was illustrated in Fig 2.

Fig. 2 Process simulation CO2 hydrogenation to methanol

As shown in Fig 2, CO2 and H2 are compressed to pressure of 40 bar and heated to temperature of 210
o
C before going to the reactor. In the reactor, methanol is formed by hydrogenation of CO2. The
unreacted gases then separated in a knock-out drum. The unreacted gases then were vented to prevent
accumulation in the methanol plant. The crude methanol was then routed to the distillation column to

3
International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

produce pure grade methanol (99.85%) at pressure of 1.25 bar and temperature of 60 oC. The power
required for the compressor and the thermal energy are required in the reboiler section.

CO2 conversion efficiency was calculated using Eq. 3 [15].

𝐶𝑂 = (3)

Where 𝐶𝑂 is the conversion of CO2 in the process, 𝐶𝑂 is the CO2 mass inlet of the plant, and
𝐶𝑂 is the CO2 mass outlet of the plant (stream CO2 excess and light gas from Separator).

2.4. Economical Evaluation

The economical evaluation started with the estimation of capital investment (CAPEX) by calculating
equipment sizing by the Guthrie method and bare module [13]. Operational cost (OPEX) then will be
calculated which consists of fixed cost and variable cost. The variable cost of operation methanol plant
will include the feed/ hydrogen cost and CO2 cost. In this study, the CO2 cost is neglectable due to it
coming from outlet gas processing facility. The cost of production methanol (LCOM) then will be
calculated using Eqs. (4) – (6) [14, 15].

𝑄
𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 = 𝐶, × ( ) × 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (4)
𝑄,

$
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑥 × CRF + 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋 + 𝑉𝑎𝑟 𝑂&𝑀 𝑦
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝑀 = 𝑡𝑜𝑛 (5)
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑒𝑂𝐻 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑦

×( )
CRF = ( )
(6)

CRF is a cost recovery factor and depends on the interest rate and plant lifetime. In this study, the interest
rate is set at 10% according to the average 5 years lending rate in Indonesia [16] and the plant lifetime
is 20 years.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Technical evaluation

The capacity factor of solar irradiation was the key factor in the calculation of size of solar PV required.
In this study, the capacity factor was taken on June since the average capacity factor in June will be
similar to the yearly average of capacity factor. The dispatch profile for each site was shown in Fig. 3
and Fig. 4. It was the electricity generated from the solar PV and battery system as an hourly basis. The
required capacity PV system for the gas field Central Sulawesi was 3,504 MWp and the gas field Central
Java was 1,823 MWp. The capacity of PV depends on solar irradiation, since the GTI gas field Central
Java is lower than Central Sulawesi, it required more PV capacity. The land area required for PV Central
Sulawesi was 19.8 km2 and Central Java was 19.2 km2. The PV system has been equipped with a battery
li-ion system, battery charge from PV during day time, and battery discharge to the system during the

4
International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

night. The battery size for Central Sulawesi and Central Java were 4,183 and 3,936 MWh/ day,
respectively.

Fig 3. Dispatch profile Central Sulawesi Fig 4. Dispatch profile Central Java

The potential methanol production from the gas outlet gas processing facility in Central Sulawesi
was 170,000 TPY and in Central Java was 180,000 TPY. The methanol purity produced is 99.85% which
is the minimum purity required. CO2 conversions were 94.8% and 96.0% for Central Sulawesi and
Central Java, respectively. To produce 1-ton of methanol it was required 1.45 ton CO2 and PV area of
38,146 m2 in Central Sulawesi and 1.42 ton CO2 and PV area of 34,965 m2 in Central Java.
The power required for hydrogen electrolysis was 311 MW for Central Sulawesi and 316 MW for
Central Java. It shows that the power required for hydrogen production on the electrolyser is
significantly larger than the power required for a methanol synthesis plant. The electrolyser power
consumption is between 54 and 80 kWh/kg-H2, and methanol power consumption is on the value 0.26
– 0.27 kWh/ kg-MeOH.

3.2. Economical evaluation

The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) and methanol (LCOM) has been used for economical evaluation
using a spreadsheet with the result shown in the Fig. 5. The biggest portion of LCOH was variable cost,
which consists cost of electricity from PV/battery and feed water. The LCOH for Central Sulawesi was
8.79 $/ kg-H2 and for Central Java was 5.42 $/ kg-H2. Central Java has lower LCOH due to the optimum
GTI as the major factor. Methanol synthesis cost is expressed using LCOM. The LCOM is shown in
Fig. 6.

Fig 5. Levelized cost of hydrogen Fig 6. Levelized cost of methanol

5
International Postgraduate Conference for Energy Research 2022 (IPCER-2022) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1261 (2023) 012035 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1261/1/012035

The biggest portion of LCOM was variable cost, which is the cost of feedstock (hydrogen). The LCOM
for Central Sulawesi was 1,960.87 and Central Java was 1,196.21 $/ ton MeOH. Lower LCOM was
caused by lower LCOH as the variable cost which is dominant to the total cost.

4. Conclusion

Techno-economic evaluation of methanol production from CO2 waste from gas processing facility
coupled with green hydrogen has been conducted. The CO2 consumption, CO2 conversion, and PV area
were used for technical evaluation. The LCOH and LCOM were used for economical evaluation. To
produce 1-ton methanol, it was required 1.45 ton of CO2 and PV area of 38,146 m2 in Central Sulawesi
and 1.42 ton of CO2 and PV area of 34,965 m2 in Central Java. LCOM Central Sulawesi was 1,960.87
$/ton MeOH higher than Central Java 1,196.21 $/ton MeOH. The more promising gas location was
Central Java due to the higher GTI as the most influencing factor resulting in the lower production cost
of blue methanol.

5. References
[1] Cuéllar-Franca, R.M. and A. Azapagic, Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies:
A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. Journal of CO2
Utilization, 2015. 9: p. 82-102.
[2] Schakel, W., et al., Assessing the techno-environmental performance of CO2 utilization via dry
reforming of methane for the production of dimethyl ether. Journal of CO2 Utilization, 2016.
16: p. 138-149.
[3] IRENA. Innovation Outlook: Renewable Methanol 2021; Available from:
https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jan/Innovation-Outlook-Renewable-Methanol
[4] Marlin, D.S., E. Sarron, and O.F. Sigurbjörnsson, Process Advantages of Direct CO2 to
Methanol Synthesis. Frontiers in Chemistry, 2018. 6.
[5] Bukhtiyarova, M., et al., Methanol Synthesis from Industrial CO2 Sources: A Contribution to
Chemical Energy Conversion. Catalysis Letters, 2017. 147.
[6] Bos, M.J., S.R.A. Kersten, and D.W.F. Brilman, Wind power to methanol: Renewable methanol
production using electricity, electrolysis of water and CO2 air capture. Applied Energy, 2020.
264: p. 114672.
[7] Rivera-Tinoco, R., et al., Investigation of power-to-methanol processes coupling electrolytic
hydrogen production and catalytic CO2 reduction. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
2016. 41: p. 4546-4559.
[8] Atlas, G.S. 2022; Available from: https://globalsolaratlas.info/map
[9] RenewablesNinja. 2022 20 Nov 2022; Available from: https://www.renewables.ninja/
[10] Carmo, M., et al., A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 2013. 38: p. 4901-4934.
[11] Zhang, H., et al., Efficiency Calculation and Configuration Design of a PEM Electrolyzer
System for Hydrogen Production. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 2012. 7.
[12] Nestler, F., et al., Kinetic modelling of methanol synthesis over commercial catalysts: A critical
assessment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2020. 394: p. 124881.
[13] Shabani, m.r., Suitable Method for Capital Cost Estimation in Chemical Processes Industries.
2015.
[14] Abbas, A., et al., Process development and policy implications for large scale deployment of
solar-driven electrolysis-based renewable methanol production. Green Chemistry, 2022. 24.
[15] Nizami, M., Slamet, and W.W. Purwanto, Solar PV based power-to-methanol via direct CO2
hydrogenation and H2O electrolysis: Techno-economic and environmental assessment. Journal
of CO2 Utilization, 2022. 65: p. 102253.
[16] CEIC, 2022; Available from: https://www.ceicdata.com/id/indicator/indonesia/bank-lending-
rate