Topic A

An analysis of GHG emissions is summarized in the Table (below). In terms of GHG emissions per
km, the proposed solution—methanol-to-hydrogen generator installed onboard a truck,
providing hydrogen on demand to a fuel cell module (FCM)—is an attractive alternative to
current diesel trucks as well as battery electric trucks and fuel cell electric (FCE) trucks with
onboard compressed hydrogen.
Truck type and fuel or feedstock Fuel Economy kgCO2e/km
Anaerobic
1.24 km/L methanol -0.070
digestor
FCE truck, onboard methanol-to- H2 Biomass or MSW 1.24 km/L methanol 0.975
Blended
1.24 km/L methanol 0.452
feedstock
Diesel truck 2.5 km/L diesel 1.044
Natural gas to H2 12 km/kg H2 0.966
FCE truck, onboard compressed H2 Water
12 km/kg H2 1.983
electrolyzer
BEV truck 0.8 km/kWh 0.945

The FCE truck with onboard methanol-to-hydrogen generator converts a mixture of methanol
plus water to high-purity hydrogen (meeting ISO 14687 specifications for mobile and stationary
fuel cell applications) and delivers this product hydrogen to the FCM. Methanol may be derived
from a variety of sources (methanol is a top-10 globally traded commodity chemical). However,
in the context of reducing carbon emissions, it is preferred that the methanol is derived from
renewable resources. Globally, many plants product methanol commercially from low-carbon-
intensity feedstocks including CO2 captured from the air or industrial waste streams; biomass;
municipal solid waste (MSW); and anaerobic digesters. Enerkem (Edmonton, Alberta) produces
methanol from MSW.
In the process of chemically converting methanol plus water to product hydrogen, the carbon
content of the methanol is converted to CO2 (so called tank-to-wheels emissions). Although this
seems counterproductive, we also have to consider the net CO2 emissions from the methanol
synthesis and transportation part of the overall cycle (well-to-tank).1 The carbon intensity listed
in the table is a sum of each of these two steps in the overall process (well-to-wheels).
To arrive at GHG emissions from the manufacture and transport of methanol, as well as the
manufacture and transport of compressed hydrogen (from natural gas), we relied on numbers
from GREET® (2020) software. This analytical tool was developed by the U.S. Department of
Energy (Argonne National Laboratory) and is frequently cited for carbon intensity numbers
associated with the production of a wide range of fuels and chemicals.
As show in the table, using methanol derived from biogas produced from anaerobic digesters
results in a slightly negative GHG emission. If the methanol is obtained from gasification of

1
PowerPoint Presentation (stanford.edu)
biomass or MSW, the net carbon intensity is 0.975 kgCO2e/km. Averaging these two feedstocks
results in a modest carbon intensity of 0.452 kgCO2e/km.
In comparison, the carbon intensity of a diesel truck is more than twice as high. Heavy-duty diesel
trucks range in mileage from 4.5 mpg to 6.5 mpg2 (1.9 km/L to 2.7 km/L). We assumed 2.5 km/L
for this comparison.
For the analysis of GHG emissions from the BEV truck, we acknowledge that national electric grids
are still dominated by fossil generation, and renewable generation represents a small fraction of
total grid capacity. Looking at the average CO2 emissions from the U.S. grid (which includes 17%
renewable generation), we have 0.475 kgCO2e/kWh. However, there is another significant factor
to consider—the GHG emissions associated with battery manufacture. This value ranges widely
but a recent study from Sweden places an average value at 84 kgCO2e/kWh.3 A heavy-duty
electric truck is expected to be loaded down with about 1,000 kWh of battery capacity. The
battery bank is assumed to have a lifetime of 240,000 km. The carbon intensity in the table is the
sum of these two terms (GHG emissions from charging the battery and GHG emissions from
battery manufacture).
Compressed hydrogen (typically stored at high pressure in expensive and heavy composite
cylinders on the FCE truck) is also associated with high carbon intensity values as the table shows.
Hydrogen obtained by steam reforming natural gas, then transporting the hydrogen via tube
trailer to the fueling station, yields a carbon intensity4 similar to a BEV truck or diesel truck. Even
worse is hydrogen obtained by water electrolysis.5 This process is energy intensive (assumed 50
kWh per kg hydrogen; commercial electrolyzers typically consume from 50 kWh to 55 kWh per
kg hydrogen) and when powered by the grid, the carbon intensity is four times higher than from
converting renewable methanol to hydrogen.

Topic B

With a deployment of five advanced trucks using onboard methanol-to-hydrogen generator plus
fuel cell module, and driving 140,000 km per year, the reduction in GHG emissions would be
82,880 kg CO2 per truck—total of 414,400 kg CO2 for five trucks operated similarly.

Topic F

2
https://www.geotab.com/truck-mpg-benchmark/
3
Lithium-Ion Vehicle Battery Production (ivl.se)
4
GREET® 2020 software, Argonne National Lab, compressed gaseous hydrogen via tube trailer from natural gas
5
Assumed 50 kWh/kg hydrogen; 0.4759 kgCO2e/kWh (U.S. national grid average); Carbon Footprint; Country Specific
Electricity Gris Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors; June 2019; www.carbonfootprint.com
Displacing diesel fuel with methanol as a feedstock to make electricity (via hydrogen and a fuel
cell module), will result in significant reduction of GHG emissions as already presented. An
additional benefit of methanol versus diesel is that methanol has the desirable properties of
being both water soluble and biodegradable. This combination means that, if spilled, methanol
is rapidly dispersed in the environment and it degrades very quickly due to naturally occurring
microbes that consume methanol.6

6
http://www.methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/White-Paper-The-Fate-Transport-of-Methanol-in-the-
Environment-1999.pdf