Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Methods to increase the efficiency of production and purification

installations of renewable methanol
J. Kotowicz , M. Brze˛ czek *
Silesian University of Technology, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article presents methods to increase the efficiency of liquid methanol production and purification
Received 28 February 2021 installations. Three solutions were proposed: CO2 compression on the side of the CCS power plant,
Received in revised form replacement of the throttle valve with an expander, and replacement of the heat exchanger with an ORC
11 May 2021
module. The calculation methodology was presented, and each concept was thermodynamically
Accepted 24 May 2021
analyzed and compared with the reference variant. The installation for the synthesis of liquid methanol
Available online 5 June 2021
was integrated with a wind farm with a nominal power of 8 MW, a photovoltaic farm with a capacity of
2 MW (based on the measurements of the photovoltaic farm installed on the campus of the Silesian
Keywords:
Methanol production
University of Technology in Poland), and a water electrolysis installation. This made it possible to in-
Electrolysis crease the efficiency of the entire system to 52.41%, which corresponds to an increase in efficiency
Wind farm relative to the reference case of 3.57 pp. The synergy effect accompanying the use of CO2 from CCS power
Renewable energy sources plants was also noticed, consisting in a simultaneous increase in the efficiency of both the analyzed
Photovoltaic farm installation and the power plant.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The development of renewable energy sources (RES) is based on
the adopted Directive 2009/28/EC, which indicates that European
Union (EU) member states should increase the share of electricity
production from RES to 20% by 2020. The directive contains
mandatory targets for an individual member state until 2020 [1].
Renewable methanol can be produced from four basic sources:
biomass, municipal waste, industrial waste, and carbon dioxide.
The first three variants are based on gasification technology and
catalytic conversion, while the last option uses carbon dioxide,
water, and surplus electricity from RES. Catalytic hydrogenation of
carbon dioxide is currently the technology with the largest devel-
opment prospects and has a relatively high probability of being
introduced as a large-scale commercial technology in the near
future [2,3].
Liquid methanol is synthesized via the exothermic reaction
between hydrogen and carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide) ac-
cording to the following reactions:
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: janusz.kotowicz@polsl.pl (J. Kotowicz), mateusz.brzeczek@
polsl.pl (M. Brze˛ czek).
.
COðgÞ þ 2H2=ðgÞ 4CH3 OHð1Þ ::::::DH ¼ 128kJ molð298KÞ (I)
CO2ðgÞ þ 3H2ðgÞ 4CH3 OHð1Þ þ H2 OðgÞ::::DH

¼ 87:kJ molð298KÞ (II)
In parallel, there is also a reverse endothermic reaction of the
conversion to water vapor:

CO2ðgÞ þ H2ðgÞ 4COðgÞ þ H2OðgÞ::::::DH ¼ þ41kJ molð298kÞ
(III)
7:277kgCO2ðgÞ þ 1kgH2ðgÞ 45:298kgCH3 OHðiÞ þ 2:979H2 OðgÞ
(IV)
The use of renewable methanol makes it possible to achieve the
objectives set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, popularizing
RES, and improving the functioning of energy storage systems
The largest functioning commercial plant producing methanol
from CO2 is the George Olah plant (belonging to Carbon Recycling
International) established in Svartsengi near a 76.5 MW geothermal
power plant in Iceland [4]. This installation produces 5 million dm3/
year methanol from 5500 tons of CO2 per year, and the produced
methanol is sold on the fuel market under the trade name

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.142
0960-1481/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
).
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Nomenclature H2 hydrogen
HG hydrogen generator
Q_ heat flux, W i isentropic
c for all in inlet
d maximum working time indicator, k end
E_ energy, MWh m mechanical
HHV higher heating value, MJ/kg mc month
m _ mass flow, kg/h MeOH methanol
m mass, kg MG methanol generator
N power, MW motor motor
n sub-intervals n net
P field nom nominal
p pressure, MPa out outlet
t temperature,  C p start
g electricity storage indicator, PF photovoltaic farm
d rated power index pp pinch point
DN own power needs, MW real real
ε working time with a nominal power indicator, REF reference
h efficiency RES renewable energy sources
t operational time, h ResGas residual gasses
tr transmission
Subscripts tra trapeze
. separator for subscripts WF wind farm
0 ÷ 23 characteristic points in cycles h takes into account efficiency
ap approach point
av average Abbreviations
C compressor CCS carbon capture storage
ch chemical DC distillation column
CND condenser HG hydrogen generator
CO2 carbon dioxide HX heat exchanger
cool cooling MG methanol generator
CP condensate pump ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
el electrical R synthesis reactor
EXP expander Re reboiler
F fan RES renewable energy sources
G generator S separator
h hour WF wind farm

Vulcanol™.
The CO2 used for the production of methanol may come not only
from power plants, but also from industrial plants, ironworks,
chemical plants, refineries, and cement plants. Carbon Recycling
International (CRI) oversees the FreSMe project, which is aimed at
building a plant to produce methanol from CO2 from steel mills. The
installation is to be implemented at the Swerea MEFOS facility in
Sweden. The methanol produced will be completely used by the
Swedish ferry operator Stena, which operates a passenger ferry
called the Stena Germanica, which is powered by liquid methanol.
A commercial methanol plant was also built at the Lünen coal
power plant in Germany, which converts captured carbon dioxide
into methanol. The plant at the Lünen power plant belongs to
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Europe and produces 1 ton of
methanol per day, using 1.4 tons of CO2 and 1 MW of electricity. The
unit is the first-ever attempt to integrate a commercial coal power
plant operating at a variable load with liquid methanol generation
[5].
The published literature in this research field is carried out
mainly by chemists and focuses on the chemical side of the issues of
liquid methanol production [23e28]. Analyses covering the gen-
eration of methanol from renewable energy sources such as wind
farms [30e32] or photovoltaic farms [29] are usually conducted for
one operating point. One of the advantages of this research is the
569
fact that the model of the analyzed installation was integrated with
the generation characteristics of a real photovoltaic and wind
farms. The methanol yields obtained from the analyzed structure of
the “renewable” methanol production plant are similar with those
presented in the literature [33], therefore it can be assumed that the
examined system is correctly validated.
A literature overview of issues regarding production of liquid
methanol from H2 and CO2 generated from renewable energy is
given by Gonzalez-Aparicio et al. [34]. Although the idea of meth-
anol generation from wind farm and captured CO2, including an
economic assessment thereof, has been presented in many litera-
tures like [35e42]. Unfortunately none of these studies addresses
integration options for utilities between electrolysis, CO2 capture
and methanol synthesis. In this study options for heat integration
between process steps are evaluated. The generation of methanol
from air and nuclear energy has been proposed by Steinberg and
Dang [43] in 1977 already. Moreover, this study is one of the few
(eg. Ref. [43]) to include CO2 capture in the process evaluation
instead of assuming the availability of a pure CO2 feed stream
[36,41,42]. In these earlier studies, opportunities for process inte-
gration are disregarded. Besides integration of utilities, this is the
one of the few study to evaluate physical integration of process
steps for standalone methanol production. It is worth noting that in
the world literature you can find research related to the renewable
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek
sources themselves, eg Refs. [44e48], which also make a significant
scientific contribution to the development of hydrogen
technologies.
1.1. Motivation, contribution and novelty
In the context of the current policy of the European Union in the
field of CO2 emissions, green deal and pressure towards the
development of hydrogen technologies, the authors undertook
research on the use of hydrogen from electrolysis installations and
CO2 from power plant exhaust gases to produce liquid methanol,
which is a better energy carrier than hydrogen. Both due to the
higher energy density in a volume unit, easier to transport and
storage.
Installations for the production and purification of methanol are
mainly carried out by chemists who focus their research on the
chemical side of the process (product purity, quality, etc.). The
choice of the structure of methanol production is dictated mainly
by chemical criteria. In the literature on the subject, the energy
efficiency of these installations is practically neglected. The authors
decided to undertake research in order to improve the structure in
terms of energy efficiency by implementing the concepts presented
  _
P2
m_ MeOH $HHVMeOH þ i¼1 m_ ResGas $ðHHVResGas Þi þ 5i¼1 Q_ i þ Nel
i
hMG:Q_ :E_ ¼
m_ H2 $HHVH2 þ DNMeOH
in this article.
The article presents a unique (compared to the literature on the
subject) analysis of the integration of the operating characteristics
of a wind farm with a photovoltaic farm and their use for the
production of liquid methanol in a wide range of using the power of
both renewable energy sources in the production of electrolytic
hydrogen. The authors defined operation indicators for each of the
installations and presented them in the methodology. The in-
dicators (25)e(30) derived by the authors and presented in section
5.2 of this article make it possible to apply them in practice to
determine the hydrogen production potential for a given Renew-
able Energy Source or Sources. equation (33) introduced by the
authors also applies in practice, allowing a simple estimation of the
efficiency of the entire system based on the efficiency of the elec-
trolysis installation and the efficiency of the methanol production
installation.
2. Methodology
The efficiency of a methanol generator hMG (presented in Fig. 1)
is determined as the product of the mass flux of produced methanol
m_ MeOH and its heat of combustion HHVMeOH (increased by the pro-
duced electricity Nel ¼ NEXP þ Nel.ORC.n), which is related to the sum
of the chemical energy of hydrogen E_ ch.H2 and the auxiliary power
DNMeOH (E_ ch.MeOH e chemical energy of methanol):
E_
chMeOH m_ þN
¼ MeOH MeOH el
$HHV
hMG ¼ _
EchH þ DNMeOH m_ H2 $HHVH2 þ $NMeOH
2
The auxiliary power of an individual installation DNMeOH is the
sum of the power needed to drive the NC.H2 hydrogen compressor,
the NC.CO2 carbon dioxide compressor, and two fans in the methanol
purification installation (NF1 þ NF2):
Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583
DNMeOH ¼ NC:H2 þ NC:CO2 þ NF (2)
NF ¼ NF1 þ NF2 (3)
The efficiency of the methanol generator hMG.h can also be
defined by taking into account the efficiency of electricity trans-
mission from the reference power plant to the methanol produc-
tion plant htr and the efficiency of electricity generation in the
reference plant hel.REF according to the formula:
m_ MeOH $HHVMeOH þ Nel
hMG:h ¼ (4)
m_ H2 $HHVH2 þ hDN$hMeOH
tr el:REF
If we will take into account the heat recovery from the instal-
lation and the energy contained in the tail gases, the net efficiency
of the methanol generator is:
P
m_ MeOH $HHVMeOH þ 2i¼1 Q_ i þ Nel
hMG:Q_ ¼ (5)
m_ H2 $HHVH2 þ DNMeOH
P
(6)
3. Methanol production and purification system e reference
case (A)
3.1. H2 and CO2 compression installation
It is necessary to properly prepare both H2 and CO2. The H2
pressure after the hydrogen generator is about 2.5 MPa. In the case
of captured CO2 from a separation installation in a power plant, the
gas pressure is about 0.1 MPa. Both gases should be compressed to a
pressure of about 7.8 MPa. The authors analyzed a single-section H2
compressor and a single-section CO2 compressor. The assumptions
for gas compression are presented in Table 1.
3.2. Methanol synthesis installation
The methanol production and purification installation was
analyzed for 1 kg/h2(g). This means that the installation was sup-
plied with an amount of CO2 according to the stoichiometry of
equation (II), which amounts to 7.277 kg/h. Fig. 1 shows a schematic
diagram of the methanol synthesis installation with a reaction loop.
The H2 stream and the CO2 stream in Fig. 1 are located at the
compression installation outlet. Both gases should be compressed
to a pressure of about 7.8 MPa. This pressure depends on the
catalyst used in the methanol reactor. For Cu/ZrO2, Au/Zn/ZrO2, and
Cu/Zn/ZrO2 catalysts, the reactor pressure should be in the range of
7.8e8 MPa [16]. Comparing the results in Refs. [6e19] shows that
increasing the temperature in the reactor decreases the methanol
(1)
selectivity and improves the CO2 conversion; however, the most
effective solution is to increase the working pressure of the reactor,
which increased the CO2 conversion to about 9 pp and methanol
selectivity to 14.9 pp (for Cu/Zn/ZrO2), which is why we chose a
high-pressure reactor for analysis. Table 2 compares the operating
parameters of methanol synthesis reactors.
570
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Fig. 1. Installation of methanol synthesis and its purification e reference case.

Table 3 presents the main assumptions for this installation. The

Table 1 higher heating value (HHV) of methanol was assumed to be
Assumptions for CO2 and H2 compression installations. HHV ¼ 22137.5 kJ/kg, while those of the residual gases were
Quantity Symbol H2 CO2 Unit
HHV14 ¼ 3934.9 kJ/kg and HHV22 ¼ 6715.8 kJ/kg, respectively
(Fig. 1).
Gas mass flow m_ H2 1 1 kg/h
The installation process begins with mixing H2 (from the water
Gas inlet pressure pin 2.5 0.1 MPa
Gas inlet temperature tin 25 25 
C
electrolysis system) and CO2 (captured from the plant's exhaust
Compressor isentropic efficiency hi.S 0.88 0.88 e gas). The H2 and CO2 mixture is then mixed with the recycled gas
Compressor mechanical efficiency hm.S 0.99 0.99 e stream, which is heated in a heat exchanger HX1 to 210  C and
Motor electrical efficiency hel.motor 0.85 0.85 e injected into an adiabatic reactor with a fixed bed RMeOH. The gases
Motor mechanical efficiency hm.motor 0.998 0.998 e
leaving the reactor are split into two streams in separator S1: the
Gas outlet pressure pout 7.8 7.8 MPa
first (representing 60% of the initial stream) is used to preheat the
gas mixture in the heat exchanger HX1 at the reactor inlet, while
the second is directed to the heat exchanger of the distillation

Table 2
Parameters used in methanol reactors [6e19].

Catalyst Reactor temperature  C Reactor pressure, MPa Methanol selectivity, %

Cu/Zn/ZrO2 220 2 71.1

Cu/Zn/ZrO2 240 2 56.2
Cu/Zn/ZrO2 250 2 29.3
Cu/Zn/ZrO2 220 8 86
Cu/Zn/Al/ZrO2 240 2 47.2
Pd/Zn/CNTs 250 2 99.6
LaCr0.5Cu0.5O3 250 2 90.8
Cu/Ga/ZrO2 250 2 75.5
Cu/Zn/Ga/SiO2 270 2 99.5
Cu/Ga/ZnO 270 2 88
Cu/ZrO2 240 7.6 48.8
Au/Zn/ZrO2 220 7.8 100
Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 250 7.8 99.96
Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 MeS 220 3.2 49
Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3/Ga2O3 250 5 >99.8
Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3/SiO2 250 7 99.7

571
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Table 3
Set of assumptions for methanol production and purification installation.

Quantity Symbol Value Unit


Gas temperature at the outlet of HX1 (at the inlet to the methanol synthesis reactor) t5 210 C

Methanol synthesis reactor operating temperature t6 284 C
Separation of mass stream 6 into streams 7/8 m7/m8 40/60 %
Gas pressure at the throttle valve outlet (point 8.2) p8.2 7.36 MPa

Gas temperature at the reboiler outlet (point 7.1) t7.1 156 C

Gas temperature at the outlet of HX3 (at the inlet to the distillation column DC) t16 75 C

Gas temperature at the outlet of HX2 t10 35 C

Water temperature at the outlet of HX5 t17.1 40 C

Separator S1 operating temperature t11 ¼ t12 35 C
The proportion of mass recirculation stream from the stream m11 m11.2 1 %
Gas pressure at the fan F1 outlet p11.3 7.8 MPa
Gas pressure at the fan F2 outlet p20 0.12 MPa
Raw methanol pressure at the throttle valve outlet (point 13) p13 0.12 MPa
Mass ratio of distillate to feed medium md/mz 0.99 e

Methanol temperature at the outlet of HX4 t21 40 C

column DC (the reboiler e Re) and is also used to heat the feed
stream of the distillation column (HX3). The two streams are mixed
again in the mixer and water-cooled to 35  C in the heat exchanger
HX2. Water and methanol that are condensed in the heat exchanger
HX2 are separated from the unreacted gases in the separation tank
(S1). Some unreacted gases (e.g., 1%) are purified to minimize the
accumulation of inert substances and byproducts in the reaction
loop.
The liquid stream leaving the first separation tank (S1), called
raw methanol, consists of methanol, water, and other dissolved
gases. Raw methanol is expanded to 1.2 bar in a throttle valve. The
residual gases are then almost completely removed in another
separation tank (S2). The remaining stream is heated to 80  C in the
heat exchanger HX3 and then directed to the distillation column
(DC). The water flowing out of the bottom of the column at 102  C
contains 23 ppb methanol. Methanol vapor containing 69 ppm
water and unreacted gases is withdrawn from the top of the col-
umn at 1 bar and 64  C. The methanol is then compressed (F2) and
cooled in the heat exchanger HX4 to 40  C. In the separation column
(S3), unreacted gases are collected from the top of the column,
while “pure” methanol is obtained from the bottom of the column
in liquid form.
4. Concepts to increase efficiency
4.1. CO2 from the power plant in CCS technology e case (B)
The new emission standards introduced by the European Union
at the level of 250 kgCO2/MWh mean that even gas and steam po-
wer plants must cooperate with CCS technologies to meet emission
standards. Power plants with CCS contain not only CO2 capture
installations but also CO2 preparation installations for its transport
to the storage site. To prepare the gas for transport, it is usually
compressed to about 13e15 MPa and cooled to about 20e25  C. The
concept involves taking CO2 from the compression installation
within the power plant with the pressure required for the methanol
reactor (approx. 7.8 MPa). This solution removes the need to ac-
count for the energy consumption of the CO2 compressor in the
balance of the installation (NC.CO2 ¼ 0). It is also worth noting that
this solution is also beneficial for power plants because it limits the
energy consumption of the CO2 compression installation in the
pressure range of 7.8e13 MPa (15 MPa). The results are presented in
Table 6.
4.2. Replacement of throttle valve with expander e case (C)
The concept is to use the chemical energy contained in the tail
572
gases (point 14 in Fig. 1) and in the waste stream from separator S3
(point 22 in Fig. 1) to raise the temperature of the stream at the
outlet of separator S1 (point 12 in Fig. 1) to replace the throttle valve
with an expander. In order to limit changes in the thermodynamic
parameters in the rest of the methanol production and purification
installation, it was assumed that downstream of the expander, the
stream is cooled in an additional heat exchanger to the same
temperature as in point 13 in the reference variant (A). These
concepts are presented in Fig. 2.
4.3. Replacement of heat exchanger HX2 with ORC module e case
(D)
In the installation shown in Fig. 1, there are three potential lo-
cations for the ORC module d it is possible to replace the HX2, HX4,
and HX5 heat exchangers with ORC modules; however, only the
parameters at the inlet to HX2 (mass flow above 30 kg/h and
temperature above 100  C) make it possible to effectively use the
ORC module. In the case of other exchangers, the mass flows
feeding the exchangers are only 2.62 kg/h for the HX5 exchanger (at
99  C) and 4.69 kg/h for the HX4 exchanger (at 78.9  C). Of course, it
must be remembered that the size of mass streams resulting from
the adopted assumption of unit counting of the methanol pro-
duction and purification installation per 1 kg/h of hydrogen. The
assumptions for the ORC module operation are summarized in
Table 4 (input parameters in Fig. 3).
Variant analysis was performed for three working agents:
R134a, ammonia, and heptane, and the results are presented in
Table 5. For each analyzed factor, the pressure at the expander inlet
was adjusted to obtain the maximum net electric power of the ORC.
In this variant, also behind the ORC module, an additional heat
exchanger was used, which cooled the medium to the same tem-
perature as in the reference variant (A).
In terms of thermodynamics, the best agent among those
analyzed is R134a, which generated 166.8 W. In subsequent com-
parisons of the concept to increase the efficiency of the methanol
synthesis plant (Table 6), the ORC module using R134a was used.
4.4. Results of the analysis
Table 6 presents a comparison of the analyzed concepts to in-
crease the efficiency of methanol production and purification in-
stallations (B), (C), and (D) with the reference variant (A) and the
variant in which all the considered concepts (B þ C þ D) were
applied.
In the case of the efficiency determined by formula (1), the
concept of CO2 compression on the block side in CCS technology
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Fig. 2. Expander application e case (C).

Table 4
Assumptions for the ORC module.

Quantity Symbol Value Unit

Approach point in economizer DTap 5 K

Pinch point in the evaporator DTpp 5 K
Expander internal efficiency hiEXP 0.8 e
Expander mechanical efficiency hmEXP 0.98 e
Condensate pump internal efficiency hiCP 0.8 e
Condensate pump mechanical efficiency hmCP 0.998 e
Generator efficiency hG 0.93 e

Water cooling temperature in the condenser tcool 15 C
Lower terminal temperature difference in the condenser DTCND 10 K

Fig. 3. ORC module application e case (D)[for R134a and expander inlet pressure of 2.401 MPa].

increased the efficiency of the installation by 1.84 pp. Replacing the
throttle valve with an expander by using the chemical energy of
residual gases of the waste stream increased the efficiency of the
installation by 1.28 pp. The smallest efficiency gain (0.41 pp) was
obtained using the ORC module. Simultaneously applying all the
concepts increased the efficiency of the installation by 3.57 pp to
0.7261.
Taking into account the efficiency of electricity transmission and
the unit efficiency (definition of efficiency defined by formula (4)),
using all analyzed solutions (variant (B þ C þ D)) increased the

573
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Table 5
ORC module work analysis results.

Quantity R134a Ammonia Heptane

Expander inlet pressure, kPa 2401 3411 61

Expander outlet pressure, kPa 665.4 1002.7 7.9
Heat recovery organic steam generator outlet temperature,  C 57 66 67
Expander outlet saturation, - 0.978 0.895 0.958
ORC module net efficiency, - 0,1165 0,0946 0,1064
ORC module net power, W 166.8 152.4 135.6

Table 6
Result of concept comparison.

Quantity (A) (B) (C) (D) (B þ C þ D)

Power of compressor H2, NC.H2, W 621.8 621.8 621.8 621.8 621.8

Power of compressor CO2, NC.CO2, W 1071.7 0 1071.7 1071.7 0
Power of fan F1, NF1, W 124.3 124.3 124.3 124.3 124.3
Power of fan F2, NF2, W 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6
Own power needs DNMeOH, W 1845.4 773.7 1845.4 1845.4 773.7
Power of expander, NEXP, W 0 0 530.2 0 530.2
Net electric power of ORC, Nel.ORC.n, W 0 0 0 166.8 166.8
Heat flux Q2, W 2915.7 2915.7 2915.7 0 0
Heat flux Q4, W 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8 79.8
Heat flux Q5, W 401.9 401.9 401.9 401.9 401.9
Additional heat exchangers, W 0 0 160 579 739
Efficiency hMG, - 0.6904 0.7088 0.7033 0.6945 0.7261
Efficiency hMG.h, - 0.6476 0.6896 0.6596 0.6514 0.7064

efficiency by 5.88 pp to 0.7064. consolidated, which is presented in Fig. 5 using equation (7). In the
remainder of the article, the combination of the characteristics of
5. Analysis of the impact of the proposed concepts on the renewable energy farms is designated as RES.
“green” methanol production system
NRES ðtÞ ¼ NWF ðtÞ þ NPF ðtÞ (7)
The considered energy storage technology in the form of an
Data on RES are presented in Table 7. For this purpose, the
alternative fuel, such as methanol, is based on the use of hydrogen
average hourly data of power generation throughout the year were
produced during the electrolysis of water and carbon dioxide ob-
used. Due to the occurrence of variable weather conditions pre-
tained during sequestration. It is, therefore, an extensive chain of
venting the production of electricity and interruptions for technical
technology. To assess the production potential of an energy carrier
service, the actual working time, i.e. with power greater than zero,
in the form of liquid fuel with a wide range of applications, the
was shorter than the duration of a full year; thus, periods with zero
analysis began with simulating the cooperation of renewable en-
power generation are not taken into account in real operating time.
ergy sources with the hydrogen generator installation. A wind farm
The annual average power obtained by both farms (RES) was
with a nominal power of 8 MW and a photovoltaic farm with a
calculated as:
nominal power of 2 MW were selected as dispersed RES generation
units. The characteristics of the photovoltaic farm were obtained ð 8760
using the scale effect for 100 kW. This installation is located on the NRES ðtÞdt
building of the Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Envi- 0
NRES:av ¼ (8)
ronmental and Power Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, 8760
where the authors work. The installation was put into operation in To illustrate the annual degree of use of the nominal power, the
2017. An extensive article on the operational experience and nominal power ratio RES dRES was introduced, which was defined as
measurements at the installation is currently in preparation. In the ratio of the average annual RES power to the nominal RES po-
general, it consists of 377 modules (each with a capacity of 265 Wp) wer NFW.nom:
with a total power of 99.905 kW and works in an on-grid system
with a power grid. The SCADA system was used to supervise, record NRES: av
measurements, and control. The results presented here are valid for
dRES ¼ (9)
NRES: nom
2018. Calculations were made for both farms for the annual work
cycle, which permitted the determination of the annual average where:
hydrogen stream directed to the installation for the production of
“green” methanol. A diagram of the system for producing “green” NRES: nom ¼ NWF: nom þ NPF: nom (10)
methanol using hydrogen produced from an RES is shown in Fig. 4.
Knowing the real working time of the farms, it is possible to
determine the average power and the power rating index relative to
5.1. The energy potential of renewable energy sources
its level. The real operating time of farms tRES.real is the number of
hours of operation of the farms when the capacity NRES > 0:
The first stage, which is necessary to determine if hydrogen can
be produced using electricity from renewable sources, involved
tRES:real ¼ t  tRES ðc NRES > 0Þ (11)
analyzing the annual work cycle of the wind farm and photovoltaic
farm. For this purpose, the annual work characteristics are However, it was decided to present these values with reference
574
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Fig. 4. Scheme of “green” methanol production system.

Fig. 5. Consolidation of the operating characteristics of the 8 MW wind farm with a 2 MW photovoltaic farm.

Table 7 Electricity is the area under the curve in the graph of NRES ¼ f(t)
RES operation data. shown in Fig. 5.
Quantity Symbol Value Unit The adopted trapezoid method is more accurate than the rect-
Nominal power NRES.nom 10 MW
angle method due to a better representation of this field. The
Average annual power NRES.av 2.068 MW approximate value of the integral for this method is obtained from
Real working time NRES.real 8376 h the general formula:
Nominal power factor dRES 0.2068 e
tðk
1     
f ðtÞdt z t  tp $ f tp þ f ðtk Þ (12)
to the full year in order to include periods with zero power gen- 2 k
tp
eration. To determine the average RES power, it was necessary to
determine the annual energy generation. For this purpose, inte- In the case of a large integration interval, to increase the accu-
gration using the trapezoidal method was used, assuming that the racy of the method, the integration step must be specified and
instantaneous power in a given hour occurs at the beginning. divided into sub-intervals. The area is thus divided into n rectan-
gular trapeziums. The step of integration is also the height of the
575
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

trapezoid and is determined by the formula: electrolysis process, it is expected that the operating time of the
energy storage installation will be reduced due to the occurrence of
tk  tp periods with zero power generation. It is worth noting that for a
dt ¼ (13)
n considerable time of the year, a low level of generated power was
The integration interval was assumed from hour 1 (beginning of achieved. For approximately 854 h, which corresponds to just over
the integration interval tp) to hour 8760 (end of the integration 9.75% of the year, the RES was operating at less than 1% of its rated
interval tk). It was then divided into n ¼ 8759 sub-intervals; power, or no electricity was generated at all. For nearly 3219 h
therefore, the integration step according to equation (4) was (including the zero-generation period), the power obtained from
dt ¼ 1. This makes the value of the function f(t) in successive points the farm was below 10% of the rated power, so for a significant part
ti to assume the power values for successive hours; therefore, for of the year (about 36.74% of the year) the energy production was
each point, the value of the function NFW ¼ f(t) should be deter- relatively low. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that the farm
mined according to the formula: exceeded 50% power generation of the rated power for only 877 h,
and at 80% for only 28 h; thus, the utilization rate of the rated
 
fi ¼ f ðti Þ ¼ f tp þ i $ dt ; for i ¼ 1; 2; … ; n (14) power was high for a relatively short time of the year.
Taking into account the dependence of the production capacity
Thus, the formula for the trapezoidal method when dividing the on the weather conditions, as well as their daily and annual vari-
integration interval into n sub-intervals is presented as: ability, it is worth determining the potential of RES installations for
individual hours of the day and months of the year. Based on this,
tðk "   #
f tp þ f ðtk Þ Xn1   the average farm rated power index was also determined using the
f ðtÞdtzdt þ f tp þ i $ dt (15) dependencies (20) and (21).
2 i¼1
tp The nominal RES power indicator for individual hours was
defined as the average power in a given hour NhRES.av during the
The trapezoidal area is determined by the formula: year:

aþb
Ptra ¼ $h
2 dRES:h ¼
Taking into account equation (16), and knowing that a and b are
the bases of the trapezoid and the values of f (tp) and f (tp þ dt)
correspond to them, and that the height of h corresponds to dt, we
can write analogously:
tðk
1 X n     
f ðtÞdtz dt f tp þ ði  1Þ $ dt þ f tp þ i $ dt
2 i¼1
tp
Thus, the energy generated by the RES is equal to the integral
value calculated by the trapezoidal method:
tðk
ERES ¼ f ðtÞdt
tp
The index of the use of the maximum working time RES dRES was
defined as the ratio of the actual working time tRES.real to the
maximum working time tRES. This indicator is described by the
equation:
tRES:real
dRES ¼
tRES
When analyzing the data collected in Table 7, it should be noted
that power generation occurred for dRES ¼ 95.62% (relationship
(19)), which is nearly the entire year. The rated power indicator
shows that on average a little over 20.68% of the farm's nominal
power was used during the year. A relatively low value of this index
may suggest the occurrence of significant fluctuations in power and
longer periods characterized by its relatively low generation. The
annual work cycle of the analyzed RES, which shows its production
instability, is presented in Fig. 5. Additionally, to fully illustrate the
annual operation of the farm and to determine the operating time
at a given power, it is convenient to use the ordered diagram, which
is also shown in Fig. 5 (green line). It presents the ratio of the RES
power to the rated power to facilitate interpretation of the obtained
generation level.
The analyzed RES did not work for 384 h. Assuming the energy
generated from a wind farm or photovoltaic farm was used in the
Pn h
(16) i¼1
NRES: av
n
(20)
NRES: nom
where:
n e the number of occurrences of a given hour during the year,
h e an hour of the day (h ¼ 1, 2, …, 24).
However, for individual months:
Pmi
(17) NRES:av mc
i¼1
mi
dRES:mc ¼ (21)
NRES:nom
where:
mi e number of hours in a given month,
mc e another month.
(18) The average power in a given hour of a day was calculated as the
average power produced in that hour throughout the year. A similar
procedure was performed to determine the average value for all
months. It should be emphasized that in this procedure, the
occurrence of zero power values was taken into account. This is
reflected in the procedure used to determine the average annual
capacity of the entire farm for a full year, where the working time
was assumed to be 8760 h; thus, when determining the average
(19) value, the hours in which no electricity was generated are also
counted. The adoption of this assumption can be justified by the
necessity to present the actual production potential of farms in
particular hours and months of the year. Failure to take into account
the periods of no generation would lead to an artificial over-
estimation of the production potential and the value of the nominal
power factor dRES determined on this basis. Otherwise, the number
of operating hours with a power greater than zero should also be
given to enable its unambiguous and correct interpretation. The
adopted calculation procedure, therefore, takes into account the
occurrence of periods with wind conditions that do not permit the
generation of energy from a wind farm, as well as periods with
conditions that do not allow for the production of energy from a
photovoltaic farm. When assessing the production potential in in-
dividual hours and months, it is extremely important to take into
account these periods in order to characterize the actual level, as
well as hourly and monthly variability throughout the year. The
results concerning the average power and the rated power index
576
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek
Fig. 6. Average power (NRES.av) and rated power index (dRES) for particular hours of the day.
Fig. 7. Average power (NRES.av) and rated power index (dRES) for particular months of the year.
for individual hours of the day during the year are presented in
Fig. 6, and for individual months in Fig. 7. It should be emphasized
that the geographical location in relation to the local (european)
time zone could affect this result (time shift).
When analyzing the values presented in the graphs in Figs. 6
and 7, there is an apparent difference between the production
potential in particular hours and months. When analyzing the
annual average hourly values, from 1 h (beginning of the day) to
24 h (end of the day), there is a gradual decrease in the generated
power, as well as a period of reduced generation, and a renewed
increase in generation, along with a period of increased electricity
production.
In Fig. 6, there is a visible increase in the average generated
power, and therefore the rated power index, in the evening hours.
Lower values are obtained in the morning, and the lowest power
levels are obtained outside the night valley. This indicates the need
to supplement energy production by the remaining units. Taking
into account the operation of industrial plants in the hours of
slightly lower generation and peak demand, it is convenient to
donate stored electricity. The impact of local wind conditions on
the location of the farms must be considered.
In the monthly analysis, the production potential is used to a
greater extent in winter and late autumn. December is particularly
favorable for energy generation, which is beneficial when it comes
to cooperating with the power system due to the increased energy
demand in autumn and winter. The summer period is characterized
by a lower average power generation, and therefore a lower degree
of utilization of the production potential. The lowest value of the
577
Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583
rated power index, which means the lowest production of elec-
tricity from the farm, was recorded in July and August, which shows
that due to the 4 times greater capacity of a wind farm compared to
a photovoltaic farm, the characteristics are dominated by the trend
appropriate for a wind farm. It should be emphasized that the data
were analyzed for only one year, and there may be some discrep-
ancies between individual years. The wind farm produced
ERES ¼ 18,119.43 MWh of electricity during the year (equation (18)).
5.2. Electrolysis process
Due to daily variations in demand for electricity in a given
country and the presence of two characteristic valleys (an example
of the characteristics shown in Fig. 8), it was assumed that the
energy generated by the farms was stored during the night valley
from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and during the valley period daily, i.e. from 10
a.m. to 2 p.m. The results of the analysis are presented as a function
of the ratio of the power of the electrolysis installation to the power
of NHG.nom/NRES.nom farms from 1 to 45%.
The analyses did not include dynamic hydrogen generator
operation, without taking into account their variable loads. It was
assumed that the installation may consist of several smaller
hydrogen generators that operate at their rated efficiency, which
justifies the omission of the use of load characteristics and changes
in the efficiency of the installation. Based on our previous research
[21], the generator's rated efficiency as a function of its actual ef-
ficiency was adopted in the form [22] and is presented in Fig. 9. The
basic assumptions for the analyses are presented in Table 8.
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

Fig. 8. The characteristics of the national demand for electricity (Poland) for exemplary day.

HG

NHG.nom/NRES.nom

Fig. 9. Hydrogen generators efficiency (hHG) as a function of NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio.

Table 8
Assumptions for the water electrolysis installation.

Quantity Value Unit

Night Valley Charging begins 22:00 e

Charging ending 6:00 e
Day Valley Charging begins 10:00 e
Charging ending 14:00 e
Higher heating value (HHV) 142.328 MJ/kg
Pressure of the produced hydrogen 25 bar

Temperature of the produced hydrogen after the cooler 25 C

 
ðhHG Þnom ¼ h0 þ a$ln m_ H2 NRES ðtÞ  NHG:nom /N1 ðtÞ ¼ NHG:nom
nom
The average annual efficiency of hydrogen generators can be
where:
determined by the relationship:
a ¼ 0,03106675; h0 ¼ 0,62846617.
To calculate the annual hydrogen production, it is necessary to
determine the total annual electricity transferred to the electrolysis mH2 $HHVH2
process, which was performed according to the exact method. hHG ¼
EHG
26 3
365 ð ð
14
X where:
EHG ¼ 4 N1 ðtÞdt þ N1 ðtÞdt5 mH2 e the annual amount of hydrogen produced.
i¼1 HHVH2 e higher heating value.
22 10
Based on the annual hydrogen production, it is possible to
for:
determine the average hourly hydrogen stream per year directed to
the methanol production installation according to equation (25),
NRES ðtÞ < NHG:nom /N1 ðtÞ ¼ NRES ðtÞ
assuming the number of operating hours of the methanol pro-
duction installation per year (tMG ¼ 8760 h):
578
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek
mH2
m_ H2:av ¼
tMG
The operation of the energy storage installation can be conve-
niently evaluated based on the size of the dimensionless indicators.
Their use allows for the interpretation of the influence of the
assumed parameters on the operation of the installation. Addi-
tionally, it is beneficial when performing variant analysis; there-
fore, the values of indicators for the installation of hydrogen
generators cooperating with the wind farm were determined,
which include the operating time, power, and energy. Among the
indicators used, the following can be distinguished:
 Maximum operating time utilization ratio dHG e defined as the
ratio of the actual operating time of the energy storage instal-
lation tHG.real to the maximum installation time tHG.max. The
maximum operating time of the installation means its
maximum possible operating time, i.e. assuming that energy is
supplied to the hydrogen generators throughout the day and
night valley. Due to the assumption of using the night valley for
8 h and the day valley for 4 h - the maximum operating time of
the installation is 4380 h per year. On the other hand, the actual
working time includes periods with zero power generation by
the farms due to shutdown of the hydrogen generators because
the electrolysis process uses only energy from renewable sour-
ces e the analyzed wind farm and photovoltaic farm. This in-
dicator is described by the equation:
tHG:real
dHG ¼
tHG:max
 Hydrogen generator rated power indicator dHG e this indicator
expresses the ratio of the average power of hydrogen generators
NHG.av, during the installation's operation to their nominal po-
wer NHG.nom. It is therefore possible to determine to what extent
the hydrogen generator installation is used and at what power
level it operates during the year. The indicator of the rated po-
wer of hydrogen generators is defined as:
NHG:av
dHG ¼
NHG:nom
The annual average power of hydrogen generators is deter-
mined as the quotient of the energy transferred to the EHG energy
storage installation to its actual operating time tHG:real :
EHG
NHG:av ¼
tHG:real
 Electricity storage ratio gHG e defined as the ratio of the annual
energy transferred to the installation of EHG hydrogen genera-
tors to the total energy generated by the ERES wind farm and
photovoltaic farm. Therefore, it determines how much of the
energy it produces is used during water electrolysis. For
example, a value of the index equal to 1 means that all energy
generated by the farms was directed to the electrolysis process.
Since energy is stored only in the night and day valleys, and the
level of the nominal power of the energy storage installation is
lower than the nominal power of RES farms, the indicator will
assume lower values. It is described by the formula:
579
Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583
EHG
gHG ¼ ð 8760
NRES ðtÞdt
0
 Working time indicator with nominal power εHG e it expresses
the ratio of working time with nominal power tHG (number of
hours in a year in which NHG ¼ NHG:nom ) to the actual working
time of the energy storage installation tHG.real. Since the method
based on the search for the intersection point was used to
determine the amount of produced energy (the method
described in Ref. [20]), it should be taken into account that in
hourly intervals, work with nominal power occurs only for a
shorter period e from the beginning of a certain hour to the
intersection or from the intersection to the end of the given
hour. It corresponds to the lower base of the rectangle
describing the area under the curve the course of the farm's
power, limited by the straight line of the nominal power of the
hydrogen generator installation. Therefore, to determine the
time of operation at nominal power, full operating hours with
nominal power and the time periods determined by the inter-
section point are summed. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
working time at nominal power will be equal to all hours. When
this indicator equals 1, the energy storage installation was
constantly working at its nominal power. It should be noted that
the value of the index depends on the adopted level of the
nominal power of the hydrogen generator installation. It may
therefore be important in economic analysis. This indicator is
described by the equation:
tHG:nom
εHG ¼
tHG:real
where:
tHG:nom ¼ tHG ðcNHG ¼ NHG:nom Þ
The course of the characteristic tHG:nom is presented in Fig. 10.
Upon increasing NHG.nom/NRES.nom, the number of hours in which the
installation works at the nominal power decreases.
The energy transferred to the energy storage installation was
determined in accordance with the methodology provided, and the
results obtained for different levels of the generator's nominal
power relative to the wind farm's nominal power are shown in
Fig. 11. When analyzing the diagram in Fig. 11, it can be observed
that a higher level of nominal power of the hydrogen generator
determines whether it is possible to store additional amounts of
energy generated in the valley at night by the wind farm. The
positive effect of increasing the amount of energy transferred to the
energy storage facility becomes increasingly limited as the installed
capacity of the hydrogen generators increases because the wind
farm and solar farm operate most of the time at a lower power
level. Therefore, increasing the power of the generators above a
certain level does not bring large energy benefits and requires
additional investment outlays. The use of one large hydrogen
generator would also mean extending the operating time below the
nominal load, which would reduce the efficiency of the installation,
and thus reduce the amount of hydrogen produced. However,
expanding the potential of the energy storage installation makes it
possible to more significantly reduce the unstable production from
the wind farm during the night and day valleys and from the
photovoltaic farm in the day valley. The results of further analyses,
including the values of the defined indicators: d, d, g, and ε, are
presented in Fig. 12.
When analyzing the results of the analyses presented in Fig. 12,
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

HG.nom

NHG.nom/NRES.nom

Fig. 10. Working time indicator of the hydrogen generator installation with nominal power (b) as a function of the NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio.

EHG

NHG.nom NRES.nom

Fig. 11. Annual amount of energy from RES transferred to storage as a function of the NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio.

dHG HG HG HG

NHG.nom/NRES.nom

Fig. 12. Hydrogen generator system operating indicators dHG, εHG, dHG, and gHG as a function of the NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio.

it can be noticed that the maximum operating time utilization in-
dex dHG remains independent of the adopted level of the nominal
power of the hydrogen generator installation. The value of this
indicator shows that the storage installation operated for about
91.2% of the total duration of the night and day valleys during the
year. A value lower than one indicates that there were periods in
which the electrolysis process was not carried out, regardless of the
duration of the day and night valleys. It was conditioned by the
presence of a zero-level of power generated by the wind farm and
photovoltaic farm. Adopting a different operating period of the
storage facility would change the value of this indicator due to a
change in the number of hours completely devoid of energy pro-
duction; therefore, the energy storage system cannot operate
longer than indicated by the value of this indicator. It is worth
noting that the analyses ignored the minimum power needed to
start the hydrogen generator installation, which may further limit
it.
When analyzing the diagram in Fig. 12, it can be noticed that the
indicator of the rated power of hydrogen generators dHG shows a
downward trend upon increasing their nominal power level. This

580
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583

was caused by extending the working time at a power below the potential for using energy storage installations will be different in
nominal power. When assessing this indicator, it is convenient to individual years and should be taken into account.
refer to the diagram of the ordered power of a wind farm connected
to a photovoltaic farm (Fig. 5) and to the operating time indicator
with a nominal power εHG. As emphasized, the generation of power 5.3. Results for the entire system
within the wind farm is below 50% of its rated capacity for a sig-
nificant part of the year. It should be expected that in the case of The efficiency of the entire methanol production system h was
using a storage installation with a higher capacity, the indicator of defined as the product of the mass flux of produced methanol
the rated power of the electrolyzers and the ratio of the operating m_ MeOH and its higher heating value HHVMeOH related to the sum of
time at the nominal power will be reduced. If the installation is the power supplied to the generator NHG together with the auxiliary
operated for a longer period of time below its nominal power, the power of individual installations DNMeOH:
efficiency of the installation will be limited; however, the analyses
E_ chMeOH m_
¼ MeOH
did not use the load characteristics and did not take into account $HHVMeOH
h¼ (32)
the limited efficiency of the installation. It was assumed that using NHG þ $NMeOH NHG þ $NMeOH
many smaller hydrogen generators connected in parallel instead of Using the dependencies for the efficiency of individual in-
one larger one would help maintain operation at nominal effi- stallations (equation (1) and (24)) and taking into account the po-
ciency. In addition, it increased the reliability of the installation at wer supplied to the NHG hydrogen production installation and the
the same time, but at the higher investment costs. In addition, due auxiliary power of individual installations DNMeOH, the efficiency of
to economies of scale, smaller hydrogen generators will be less the entire system can also be presented as follows (In practice, the q
efficient than a larger unit. Determining the unequivocal benefits of parameter has values in the range of 1.01e1.15):
a given solution would result from an in-depth analysis that takes
into account the load characteristics and the minimum power level q þ h1HG
required for the generator to start up. h ¼ hMG $hHG $ (33)
The electric energy storage index gHG increased upon increasing
qþ1
the NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio. It should be emphasized that increasing where:
its value along with increasing the nominal power level gradually
becomes limited; therefore, further increasing the nominal capac- NHG
ity brings increasingly fewer benefits. Referring to the previously q¼ (34)
DNMeOH
discussed indicator of rated power and its tendencies, it should be
emphasized that although increasing the level of the nominal po- Using the concepts presented in point 4 of this article and using
wer of generators allows more energy to be stored during the year, the efficiencies presented in Table 6 and the generator efficiency
it is paid for with prolonged work below the nominal power. If the characteristics shown in Fig. 9, the efficiencies of the entire system
load characteristics are taken into account, this would require a were determined (equation (32)) and are described by the function
longer operation of the installation with a reduced energy con- NHG.nom/NRES.nom in Fig. 13.
version efficiency. It should be kept in mind that the value of the Analyzing Fig. 13 shows that the application of all three concepts
gHG index, depending on the amount of energy transferred for allows the system efficiency barrier to be exceeded at the level of
storage, is inextricably linked with the amount of hydrogen pro- 52% for the ratio NHG.nom/NRES.nom  0.29, reaching a maximum of
duced in the installation. Taking into account the change in effi- 52.41% for the ratio NHG.nom/NRES.nom ¼ 0.45.
ciency from the load, it is possible that despite an increase in the
gHG index, the amount of produced hydrogen decreases. This would 6. Conclusions
be caused by the limited efficiency. An in-depth economic analysis
would clearly determine which moment of increasing the rated
This paper presented three concepts for increasing the efficiency
capacity of energy storage installations is economically justified.
of methanol production and purification installations:
The values of individual indicators are related to the operating
characteristics of wind and photovoltaic farms and may have
 preparing (compressing) CO2 for the reactor on the block side in
different values depending on the analyzed year; therefore, the
the CCS technology;

NHG.nom/NRES.nom

Fig. 13. Efficiency of the “green” methanol production system (h) relative to the concepts proposed as a function of the NHG.nom/NRES.nom ratio.

581
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek
 replacing the throttle valve with an expander by using the
chemical energy of the residual gases and waste stream;
 using an ORC module to replace a heat exchanger.
A simple concept of the compression process within the power
plant, from which CO2 is obtained for the reactor, allows for a
synergistic effect e a significant increase in the efficiency of the
installation by approx. 1.84 pp, while reducing the investment costs
of the installation, as well as an increase in the efficiency of the unit
resulting from the reduced energy consumption of the compression
installation in the pressure range 7.8e13 MPa (15 MPa).
The use of the chemical energy of the residual gases and the
waste stream makes it possible to raise the temperature of the
medium in front of the throttle valve and replace it with an
expander to produce additional electricity. The use of an expander
in place of the throttle valve increased the efficiency of the instal-
lation by another 1.28 pp. The use of an ORC module made it
possible to generate electricity from low-temperature sources and
also generate an additional approx. 166.8 W using R134a as the
working medium.
The use of all three solutions at the same time achieved an ef-
ficiency of 72.61%. In the case of integrating the installation within a
system d a wind farm with a nominal power of 8 MW, a photo-
voltaic farm with a capacity of 2 MW, and a water electrolysis
installation d it was possible to achieve an efficiency of the entire
system (equation (32)) of 52.41% for NHG.nom/NRES.nom ¼ 0.45, which
corresponds to a 3.57 pp increase in efficiency relative to the
reference case (A).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
J. Kotowicz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision. M.
Brze˛ czek: Software, Visualization, Investigation, Writing e review
& editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the National Science Center as part of
the research project “Research on various structures of systems for
the energetic use of methanol and its production based on H2 from
the electrolysis process and CO2 from CCS installation” (project no.
2018/29/B/ST8/02244).
References
[1] DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC of the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and of the COUNCIL of
23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources
and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/
30/EC.
[2] Xuecheng Yan, Han Guo, Dongjiang Yang, Shilun Qiu, Xiangdong Yao, Catalytic
hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to fuels, Curr. Org. Chem. 18 (2014)
1335e1345.
[3] T. Tsatsaronis G, Exergy-based evaluation of methanol production from nat-
ural gas with CO2 utilization, Energy 141 (15 December 2017) 2528e2539.
[4] M. Kauw, R.M.J. Benders, C. Visser, Green methanol from hydrogen and carbon
dioxide using geothermal energy and/or hydropower in Iceland or excess
renewable electricity in Germany, Energy 90 (Part 1) (October 2015)
208e217.
[5] D.S. Kourkoumpas, E. Papadimou, K. Atsonios, S. Karellas, P. Grammelis,
E. Kakarasab, Implementation of the Power to Methanol concept by using CO2
from lignite power plants: techno-economic investigation, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 41 (38) (2016) 16674e16687.
[6] R. Andika, A.B.D. Nandiyanto, Z.A. Putra, M.R. Bilad, Y. Kim, Ch M. Yun, M. Lee,
582
Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583
Co-electrolysis for power-to-methanol applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 95 (2018) 227e241.
[7] X. Guo, D. Mao, G. Lu, S. Wang, G. Wu, Glycineenitrate combustion synthesis
of CuOeZnOeZrO2 catalysts for methanol synthesis from CO2 hydrogenation,
J. Catal. 271 (2) (2010) 178e185.
[8] X.-L. Liang, X. Dong, G.-D. Lin, H.-B. Zhang, Carbon nanotube-supported
PdeZnO catalyst for hydrogenation of CO2 to methanol, Appl. Catal. B Envi-
ron. 88 (3e4) (2009) 315e322.
[9] R. Raudaskoski, M.V. Niemela €, R.L. Keiski, The effect of ageing time on
coprecipitated Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 catalysts used in methanol synthesis from CO2
and H2, Top. Catal. 45 (1e4) (2007) 57e60.
[10] J. Słoczyn  ski, R. Grabowski, A. Kozłowska, P. Olszewski, J. Stoch, J. Skrzypek,
M. Lachowska, Catalytic activity of the M/(3ZnO$ZrO2 ) system (M ¼ Cu, Ag,
Au) in the hydrogenation of CO2 to methanol, Appl. Catal. Gen. 278 (1) (2004)
11e23.
[11] X. An, J. Li, Y. Zuo, Q. Zhang, D. Wang, J. Wang, A Cu/Zn/Al/Zr fibrous catalyst
that is an improved CO2, Catal. Lett. 118 (3e4) (2007) 264e269.
[12] L. Jia, J. Gao, W. Fang, Q. Li, Carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol over
the pre-reduced LaCr0.5Cu0.5O3 catalyst, Catal. Commun. 10 (15) (2009),
2000e2003.
[13] S.-H. Liu, H.P. Wang, H.-C. Wang, Y.W. Yang, In situ EXAFS studies of copper on
ZrO2 during catalytic hydrogenation of CO2, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat.
Phenom. 144e147 (2005) 373e376.
[14] J. Toyir, P. Ramirez de la Piscina, J.L.G. Fierro, N. Homs, Catalytic performance
for CO2 conversion to methanol of gallium-promoted copper-based catalysts:
influence of metallic precursors, Appl. Catal. B Environ. 34 (4) (2001)
255e266.
[15] J. Liu, J. Shi, D. He, Q. Zhang, X. Wu, Y. Liang, Q. Zhu, Surface active structure of
ultra-fine Cu/ZrO2 catalysts used for the CO2 þH2 to methanol reaction, Appl.
Catal. Gen. 218 (1e2) (2001) 113e119.
[16] J. Słoczyn  ski, R. Grabowski, P. Olszewski, A. Kozłowska, J. Stoch, M. Lachowska,
J. Skrzypek, Effect of metal oxide additives on the activity and stability of Cu/
ZnO/ZrO2 catalysts in the synthesis of methanol from CO2 and H2, Appl. Catal.
Gen. 310 (2006) 127e137.
[17] Florian Pontzen, CO2-based methanol and DME e efficient technologies for
industrial scale production, Catal. Today 171 (11) (2011) S.242eS.250.
[18] L. Zhongtang, T.T. Tsotsis, Methanol synthesis in a high-pressure membrane
reactor with liquid sweep, J. Membr. Sci. 570e571 (2019) 103e111.
[19] M. Saito, et al., Methanol synthesis from CO2 and H2 over a CuZnO-based
multicomponent catalyst, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997) S.437eS.442.
[20] J. Toyir, et al., Sustainable process for the production of methanol from CO2
and H2 using Cu/ZnO-based multicomponent catalyst, Phys. Procedia 2 (3)
(2009) 1075e1079.
[21] J. Kotowicz, D. We˛ cel, M. Brze˛ czek, Analysis of the work of a “renewable”
methanol production installation based on H2 from electrolysis and CO2 from
power plants, Energy 221 (15 April 2021) 119538.
[22] J. Kotowicz, D. We˛ cel, M. Jurczyk, Analysis of component operation in power-
to-gas-to-power installations, Appl. Energy 216 (15 April) (2018) 45e59.
[23] G. Leonzio, E. Zondervan, P.U. Foscolo, Methanol production by CO2 hydro-
genation: analysis and simulation of reactor performance, Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 44 (Issue 16) (29 March 2019) 7915e7933.
[24] F. Samimi, N. Hamedi, M.R. Rahimpour, Green methanol production process
from indirect CO2 conversion: RWGS reactor versus RWGS membrane
reactor, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. Vol. February 7 (Issue 1) (2019) 102813.
[25] L.R. Clausen, N. Houbak, B. Elmegaard, Technoeconomic analysis of a methanol
plant based on gasification of biomass and electrolysis of water, Energy May
35 (Issue 5) (2010) 2338e2347.
[26] A.M. Kler, E.A. Tyurina, A.S. Mednikov, A plant for methanol and electricity
production: technical-economic analysis, Energy 15 December 165 (2018)
890e899 (Part B).
[27] D. Xiang, J. Xiang, Z. Sun, Y. Cao, The integrated coke-oven gas and pulverized
coke gasification for methanol production with highly efficient hydrogen
utilization, Energy 1 December 140 (2017) 78e91. Part 1.
[28] A. Crivellari, V. Cozzani, I. Dincer, Exergetic and exergoeconomic analyses of
novel methanol synthesis processes driven by offshore renewable energies,
Energy 187 (15 November 2019). Article 115947.
[29] T.N. Do, J. Kim, Process development and techno-economic evaluation of
methanol production by direct CO2 hydrogenation using solar-thermal en-
ergy, J. CO2 Util. 33 (October) (2019) 461e472.
[30] Martín M.: Methodology for solar and wind energy chemical storage facilities
design under uncertainty: methanol production from CO2 and hydrogen.
Comput. Chem. Eng. Volume 92, 2 September 2016, Pages 43-54.
[31] Bos M. J., Kersten S.R.A., Brilman D.W.F.: Wind power to methanol: renewable
methanol production using electricity, electrolysis of water and CO2 air
capture. Appl. Energy Volume 264, 15 April 2020, 114672.
[32] M. Matzen, M. Alhajji, Y. Demirel, Chemical storage of wind energy by
renewable methanol production: feasibility analysis using a multi-criteria
decision matrix, Energy 15 December 93 (2015) 343e353. Part 1.
[33] E.S. Van-Dal, Ch Bouallou, Design and simulation of a methanol production
plant from CO2 hydrogenation, J. Clean. Prod. 57 (2013) 38e45.
[34] I. Gonz_alez-Aparicio, Z. Kapetaki, E. Tzimas, Wind energy and carbon dioxide
utilisation as an alternative business model for energy producers: a case study
in Spain, Appl. Energy 222 (2018) 216e227.
[35] K. RVauchle, L. Plass, H.-J. Wernicke, M. Bertau, Methanol for renewable en-
ergy storageand utilization, Energy Technol. 4 (1) (2016) 193e200.
J. Kotowicz and M. Brze˛ czek
[36] M. Perez-Fortes, J.C. Schoneberger, A. Boulamanti, E. Tzimas, Methanol syn-
thesisusing captured CO2as raw material: techno-economic and environ-
mental assess-ment, Appl. Energy 161 (2016) 718e732.
[37] I. Gonz_alez-Aparicio, M. P_erez-Fortes, A. Zucker, E. Tzimas, Opportunities of
integrating CO2Utilization with RES-E: a power-to-methanol business model
withwind power generation, Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6905e6918.
[38] M. Rivarolo, D. Bellotti, L. Magistri, A.F. Massardo, Feasibility study of meth-
anolproduction from different renewable sources and thermo-economic
analysis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (4) (2016) 2105e2116.
[39] A.K. Sayah, A.K. Sayah, Wind-hydrogen utilization for methanol production:
aneconomy assessment in Iran, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (8) (2011)
3570e3574.
[40] Bellotti D, Rivarolo M, Magistri L, Massardo AF. Feasibility study of meth-
anolproduction plant from hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide. J CO2U-
tilizat2017; 21:132-138.
[41] Hank C, Gelpke S, Schnabl A, White RJ, Full J, Wiebe N, et al. Economics &
carbon dioxide avoidance cost of methanol production based on renewable
hydrogen andrecycled carbon dioxideepower-to-methanol. Sustain. Energy
Fuels2018;2(6):1244-1261.
[42] R. Rivera-Tinoco, M. Farran, C. Bouallou, F. Aupre ^tre, S. Valentin, P. Millet, et
al., Investigation of power-to-methanol processes coupling electrolytic
hydrogen pro-duction and catalytic CO2reduction, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41
(8) (2016) 4546e4559.
583
Renewable Energy 177 (2021) 568e583
[43] M. Steinberg, V.-D. Dang, Production of synthetic methanol from air and water
usingcontrolled thermonuclear reactor powerdI. technology and energy
requirement, Energy Convers. 17 (2) (1977) 97e112.
[44] Seçkin Karasu, Altan Aytaç, Stelios Bekiros, Wasim Ahmad, New forecasting
model with wrapper-based feature selection approach using multi-objective
optimization technique for chaotic crude oil time series, Energy 212 (1
December 2020) 118750.
[45] Altan Aytaç, Seçkin Karasu, Enrico Zio, A new hybrid model for wind speed
forecasting combining long short-term memory neural network, decompo-
sition methods and grey wolf optimizer, Appl. Soft Comput. 100 (March 2021)
106996.
[46] Seçkin Karasu, Aytaç altan.: recognition model for solar radiation time series
based on random forest with feature selection approach. International Con-
ference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering, ELECO), 2019 11th, https://
doi.org/10.23919/ELECO47770.2019.8990664.
lu.: estimation of fast
[47] Seçkin Karasu, Aytaç altan., zehra saraç., rıfat haciog
varied wind speed based on narx neural network by using curve fitting, Int. J.
Eng. Adv. Technol. 4 (3) (2017) 137e146.
[48] Seçkin Karasu, Aytaç Altan, Zehra Saraç, Rıfat Haciog lu: Prediction of solar
radiation based on machine learning methods. International Engineering
Research Symposium, 11-13 Sept. 2017 Düzce, TURKEY (ISBN: 978-605-
60595-9-9).