<scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> utilization for methanol production; Optimal pathways with minimum <scp>GHG</scp> reduction cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mitigating CO2 emissions from industries and other sectors of our economy is a critical component of building a sustainable economy. This paper investigates two different methanol synthesis routes based on CO2 utilization (CO2 capture and utilization [CCU], and tri‐reforming of methane [TRM]), and compares the results with the conventional methanol production using natural gas as the feedstock (NG‐MeOH). A comprehensive techno‐economic analysis (TEA) model that includes the findings of the life cycle assessment (LCA) models of methanol production using various CO2 utilization pathways is conducted. Economic analysis is conducted by developing a cost model that is connected to the simulation models for each production route. Compared to the conventional process (with a GHG emission of 0.6 kg CO2/kg MeOH), the lifecycle GHG reduction of 1.75 and 0.41 kg CO2/kg MeOH are achievable in the CCU and TRM pathways, respectively. Furthermore, the results indicate that, under current market conditions and hydrogen production costs, methanol production via CO2 hydrogenation will result in a cost approximately three times higher than that of the conventional process. The integrated TEA–LCA model shows that this increased cost of production equates to a required life cycle GHG reduction credit of $279 to $422 per tonne of CO2 utilized, depending on construction material and selected pathway. Additionally, when compared to the CO2 hydrogenation route, the tri‐reforming process (TRM‐MeOH) can result in a 42% cost savings. Furthermore, a minimum financial support of $56 per tonne utilized CO2 will be required to make the TRM‐MeOH process economically viable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".