Fuel 319 (2022) 123741

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

The direct synthesis of dimethyl ether (DME) from landfill gas: A

techno-economic investigation
Loukia-Pantzechroula Merkouri , Huseyin Ahmet , Tomas Ramirez Reina , Melis S. Duyar *
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of fossil fuels is primarily responsible for the increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in the
Biogas upgrading atmosphere and, unless this issue is quickly addressed, the effects of global warming will worsen. Synthesis gas
Dimethyl ether (syngas) is an attractive target chemical for carbon capture and utilisation and dry reforming of methane (DRM)
Dry reforming of methane
enables the conversion of methane (CH4) and CO2, the two most abundant greenhouse gases, to syngas. This
CO2 utilisation
Waste valorisation
paper presents a techno-economic analysis of a syngas-to-dimethyl ether (DME) process, by utilising landfill gas
as feedstock. The process developed herein produces DME, methanol and high-pressure steam as products,
resulting in an annual income of €3.49 m and annual operating expenses of €1.012 m. Operating profit was
calculated to be €2.317 m per year and the net present value (NPV) was €11.70 m at the end of the project’s 20-
year lifespan with a profitability index of 0.83€/€. The process was expected to have a payback time of
approximately 10 years and an internal rate of return of 12.47%. A key aspect of this process was CO2 utilisation,
which consumed 196,387 tonnes of CO2 annually. The techno-economic analysis conducted in this paper il­
lustrates that greenhouse gas utilisation processes are currently feasible both in terms of CO2 consumption and
profitability.

1. Introduction renewable resources and shifting towards a bio-renewable economy.

The high concentration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the
atmosphere and the associated global warming are some of the major
challenges that modern society face today. The most well-known and
alarming GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is mainly produced from
the combustion of fossil fuels to serve the needs of transportation, en­
ergy, and several industrial processes. China is the biggest CO2
contributor as it emitted 10 Gt of CO2 from fuel combustion in 2019 out
of the 34.2 Gt globally, followed by the United States, the European
Union and India [1]. However, there are other GHG which must also be
abated, for example methane (CH4), which has a global warming po­
tential (GWP) that is 25 times higher than CO2 in the time horizon of
100 years [2]. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 increased
from approximately 270 ppm and 715 ppbv, respectively, in the pre-
industrial era to 412 ppm and 1872 ppbv in 2020 respectively [2–4].
As a result, policymakers around the world are quickly being forced to
tackle these forthcoming challenges. The European Union aims to
address these issues with the Horizon Europe (HE) programme [5]. The
first step of the HE programme entails reducing the dependence on non-
Hence, the use of biomass and waste products to produce biofuels and
chemicals is strongly encouraged and a rapid technical progression is
required to be able to shift from the current non-renewable processes to
carbon–neutral ones.
One key advantage of biomass is the ability to produce biogas via
anaerobic digestion. Biogas is typically derived from landfill waste,
sewage sludge and organic waste [6]. The CH4/CO2 ratio varies
depending on the source, being typically 1.25, 1.5, 1.85 respectively
[7,8], but can vary from 1.125 to 1.833, 1.222–1.857 and 1.5–2.333
respectively [7] and have several impurities [9]. Internationally, Europe
is the largest producer of biogas generating around 12 Mt/year. Within
Europe, the United Kingdom is the largest producer of landfill biogas
(84% of its national production) and overall, the second largest pro­
ducer, generating 1.8 Mt/year [6]. The two main uses of biogas are in a
combined heat and power (CHP) unit to produce electricity and heat and
in the production of biomethane and other valuable products. In both
cases, whilst there is a reduction of the fossil fuels dependence, the CO2
contained in the biogas mixture is released into the atmosphere, leading
to global warming [10]. However, it is vital that the proposed

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.duyar@surrey.ac.uk (M.S. Duyar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123741
Received 21 December 2021; Received in revised form 14 February 2022; Accepted 28 February 2022
Available online 12 March 2022
0016-2361/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
alternatives of fossil fuels are not contributing to the increase of GHG
emissions.
One product of biogas, which is increasingly being considered, is
syngas. Syngas is a gaseous mixture which contains hydrogen and car­
bon monoxide, and industrially it is considered important due to its
robust versatility as a feedstock for the formation of fuels and chemicals,
including hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) and
various alcohols [6,11]. To date, most syngas is produced using fossil
fuel-based technologies, namely the steam methane reforming (SMR)
process, during which CH4 reacts with steam to produce syngas. In the
SMR process, the H2:CO ratio of the resulting syngas is 3:1, which is
suitable for the production of hydrogen, and in fact the main use of SMR
is to produce hydrogen for ammonia synthesis [12].
Although fossil fuel-based syngas production techniques such as SMR
are widely used in industry, new syngas technologies are increasingly
being researched, developed, and implemented as a way of utilising
different feedstocks and lowering GHG emissions associated with syn­
gas. The dry reforming of methane (DRM) process (eq. (1)) is particu­
larly attractive as it utilises the two most abundant greenhouse gases,
namely CO2 and CH4 [13]. Due to its endothermic nature, DRM is
favourable at high temperatures ranging from 700 to 1000 ◦ C and at­
mospheric pressure [13–15]. Compared to SMR, the syngas produced by
DRM has a H2/CO ratio of 1, suitable for producing long chain hydro­
carbons via FTS and other valuable chemicals such as dimethyl ether
(DME) [13,16]. In order for DRM to take place, a catalyst must be used,
which is usually Ni-based due to its low cost although it usually suffers
from deactivation via coking. Noble-metals-based catalysts perform
better, but their high cost is prohibitive for industrial applications
[13,16,17]
DRM : CH 4 + CO2 ↔ 2H2 + 2COΔH298K = 247KJmol− 1
(1)
For syngas production by DRM to be an appealing process, it must
provide environmental benefits such as the net consumption of GHGs,
while also being economically attractive. Herein we investigate the
feasibility of upgrading landfill gas, which contains mainly CO2 and
CH4, to DME via syngas (produced by DRM) as an intermediate step.
DME emerges as a promising target product due to its established market
size, expected market growth, and stoichiometric requirement of a
syngas H2:CO ratio of 1:1. DME is mainly used as an aerosol propellant in
spray cans, substituting the banned ozone-destroying chlorofluoro­
carbon (CFC) compounds. Additionally, it can be used as an alternative
transportation fuel to diesel and LPG as they have similar chemical and
physical properties [18]. The global market for DME is expected to reach
€10.26 billion by 2025 with a projected cumulative annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 10% [19]. The main by-product during DME production is
methanol. Methanol is also an economically attractive chemical, that
can be used as an alternative transportation fuel, but also in the pro­
duction of chemicals [20]. The methanol global market size is projected
to grow to €33.3 billion in 2027 with a CAGR of 4.6% [21] and its
production capacity is estimated to be more than 300 million metric tons
in 2030 [22].
The direct DME synthesis reaction process from CO and H2 proceeds
through three main successive reactions: methanol synthesis, methanol
dehydration and water–gas shift (WGS) reaction (2–4). The DME
Fig. 1. Illustration of the conversion of raw landfill to biogas and valuable products (DME and MeOH).
2
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
reaction is carried out at high pressure of approximately 50 bar and at a
temperature range between 200 and 300 ◦ C [18,23,24]. Direct DME
synthesis is not a new pathway and it has gained a lot of attention due to
its increased product conversion compared to the indirect pathway
[18,25,26]. Whilst the DME process releases some CO2, its combination
with DRM, which has been recently patented [27], would have a 33%
carbon utilisation rate (consuming more CO2 than is emitted). Fig. 1
illustrates a process configuration which would utilise raw landfill to
produce DME and MeOH through DRM and direct DME process.
Methanol Synthesis : CO + 2H2 ↔ CH 3 OH ΔH298K = − 90.6KJmol− 1
(2)
MethanolDehydration: 2CH 3 OH↔CH 3 OCH3 +H2 O ΔH298K =− 23.4KJmol− 1
(3)
WGS : CO + H2 O ↔ H2 + CO2 ΔH298K = − 41.2KJmol− 1
(4)
1
OverallReaction:3CO+3H2 ↔CH 3 OCH3 +CO2 ΔH298K =− 245.8KJmol−
(5)
To date, the vast majority of techno-economic studies surrounding
biomass/CO2 utilisation technologies have shown them to be greatly
uneconomical and often the product synthesised has been several times
more expensive than its fossil fuel-derived counterpart [28–32]. One
strategy that governments use to avoid fossil fuel-based technologies is
the introduction of carbon tax. In the UK at present the carbon tax is
€20/t of CO2 [33]. On the other hand, the emission trading scheme (ETS)
in EU showcases a sharp rise in carbon tax, as it is currently approxi­
mately €90/t of CO2, up from €50/t of CO2 in July 2021 and it is ex­
pected to further increase [34]. Nevertheless, while companies want to
avoid paying a carbon tax, there are some economical and infrastructure
related issues associated with sequestration of CO2. For instance,
capturing CO2 from a SMR process and reducing emissions by up to 60%
is reported to cost €44/t of CO2, and reducing emissions by up to 90% to
cost €65/t of CO2 [35,36]. Therefore, the carbon tax at its current level
does not provide necessary economic incentive to decarbonise all
processes.
Previous techno-economic evaluations have focused on the produc­
tion of DME via several routes, including biomass [37], coal [38], and
methanol, either via a traditional route [39] or via new routes, such as
diving wall column [40] and reactive distillation [41], with DME pro­
duction rates of approximately 197 k, 69.5 k, 95.5 k, 178 k and 100 k
ton/year respectively. We present herein a techno-economic study
which investigates the use of a landfill waste in a DRM process to pro­
duce syngas, which is subsequently upgraded to DME. Therefore, the
aim of this work is to integrate a biogas/CO2 utilisation process to
produce DME and examine its carbon footprint and profitability. This
work will serve to fill any knowledge gaps and have real-world impact,
while highlighting the important role biomass and experimental low-
carbon technologies play in accelerating the shift to a greener future.
Our technoeconomic analysis evaluates the profitability of a plant based
in the UK using publicly available data from the Dunbar landfill site. The
Dunbar landfill site produced 2500 m3/hr of landfill gas (LFG) [42],
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
which was assumed to be a mixture of 60% of CH4 and 40% of CO2 based
on [6,13,16,43,44], suitable for the DRM-DME process. Pre-cleaning of
biogas was assumed to have been taken place prior to it reaching the
plant. The proposed design plant has a DME production rate of 0.8247
ton/h or 7,224 ton/year (much lower compared to previous TEA of DME
production), with utilities provided by an external supplier. The DRM
catalyst used in this work is a Ni-based perovskite catalyst developed by
our group previously [14,45]. The DME catalyst was assumed to be a
CuO–ZnO–Al2O3 (CZA) catalyst [46–48]. By producing DME and MeOH
from LFG, the process avoids costs of CO2 isolation and capture, and
generates revenue from product sales.
2. Methods
2.1. Process description
Fig. 2 shows the process to obtain syngas, and its subsequent
upgrading to DME and MeOH and Fig. 3 is the Aspen plus process flow
diagram. All stream properties and relevant information are presented in
supporting information. The overall process was divided into two main
stages. In the first stage, Dunbar LFG was converted into syngas via DRM
with a 78% CO2 conversion at 700℃ and 1.013 bar (see supporting
information). The gaseous mixture was then compressed via a 3-stage
compressor-intercooling step to 50 bar. In the second stage, the
gaseous mixture was fed to the direct DME reactor, modelled as an
equilibrium reactor with 250℃ and 50 bar as reaction conditions. The
product/unreacted gas mixture then entered a series of three distillation
columns. The first distillation column (50 bar) separates the syngas and
LFG (distillate) from the DME, MeOH and water mixture (bottoms). The
top products from the first distillation column were then sent to a
furnace for combustion, and the exhaust gas generated was used to
preheat both reactors in the process and generate high pressure steam
(HPS). The second distillation column (5 bar) is to achieve separation of
the DME (distillate) from the MeOH and water (bottoms). The final
distillation column (1.013 bar) is to achieve separation of the MeOH
(distillate) from water (bottoms). All three distillation columns were
initially simulated as ‘Shortcut’ columns. Once the product specifica­
tions were specified, the ‘shortcut’ columns were changed to rigorous
‘RadFrac’ columns and were subsequently optimised.
2.2. Process simulation
For this project, catalyst data and process conditions supplied by
[14,45] were used for modelling the DRM reactor. The DME reactor was
based on industrial conditions and the experimentally determined
catalyst performance parameters (see supporting information) [46]. The
process was simulated on ASPEN Plus, using the NRTL-RK thermody­
namic package [38]. The DRM reactor was modelled as a stoichiometric
reactor and the DME as an equilibrium reactor. Certain parts of the
simulation were optimised in order to reduce utilities and equipment
Fig. 2. Simplified schematic of landfill gas to DME and MeOH process.
3
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
size. For example, the number of stages used for distillation columns, the
reflux/boil-up ratios and the feed tray placement were optimised to
reduce capital expenditure and overall column duty. In the sensitivity
analysis, the DRM reactor was modelled as an equilibrium reactor,
instead of stoichiometric.
2.3. Economic model
The equipment costs were calculated by using a combination of
equipment costing equations (see supporting information) [31] and
equipment sizing procedures (for distillation column sizing) [49,50].
After this, a detailed technoeconomic analysis of the overall process was
performed using the equations detailed in this section and supporting
information. The analysis was carried out in euros (€) instead of pounds
(£) due to the availability of data. A sensitivity analysis was also carried
out around the two reactors to find the optimum conditions. The re­
actions’ conditions were varied and the outlet product flows were ob­
tained from the Aspen plus simulation. Consequently, the hourly
revenue for the various conditions was calculated by multiplying the
mass flow rate of the products by their price. The economic analysis was
based on 8760 h production of DME per year except of the first two and
last two years of operation (see supporting information). Heat recovery
was also achieved through the combustion of distillates from S-1, which
was able to meet the reactors heat demand and led to the production of
HPS, reducing the operating costs and increasing the revenue.
The economic model used in this report was based on the discounted
cash flow (DCF) method. This method includes calculating the net pre­
sent value (NPV), profitability index (PI), payback time (PT) and inter­
nal rate of return (IRR) [31]. Table 1 shows the input values used for the
TEA. Eqs. (6) and (7) were used to calculate NPV and PI, respectively.
Additionally, cash inflows (It ) and cash outflows (Ot ) were estimated in
agreement with eqs. (8) and (9). Moreover, the time effect was consid­
ered by the discount rate parameter (rd ) and the lifetime of the project
(nProject ) was set as 20 years. The loan necessary for the investment
(Cinvest ) was given as CAPEX and 7.5% working capital (10). The reve­
nues came from selling DME, MeOH and HPS. All of them were calcu­
lated from the prices (PDME refers to the price of DME; PMeOH refers to the
price of MeOH; PHPS refers to the price of HPS), and the quantity pro­
duced (QDME , QMeOH and QHPS , respectively), represented from eqs. (11),
(12) and (13) respectively. The cash outflows (Ot ) were calculated by
grouping: (CElectricity ), obtained from the price of electricity (PElectricity ) and
the quantity (QElectricity ); (CCoolingWater ), obtained from the price of cooling
water (PCoolingWater ) and the quantity (QCoolingWater ); (CDRMCatalyst ), obtained
from the price of catalyst for the DRM process (PDRMCatalyst ) and the
quantity (QDRMCatalyst ); (CDMECatalyst ), obtained from the price of catalyst
for the DME process (PDMECatalyst ) and the quantity (QDMECatalyst );
(CCatalystCharge/Recharge ), obtained from the price of charging/recharging
catalyst (PCatalystCharge/Recharge ) and the quantity (Q(DME+DRMCatalyst) );
(CWaste− waterProcessing ), obtained from the price of treating waste-water
(PWaste− waterProcessing ) and the quantity (QWaste− water ); (CMaintenance ),
L.-P. Merkouri et al. Fuel 319 (2022) 123741

Fig. 3. ASPEN Plus process simulation configuration.

obtained from 5% of annualised CAPEX; (CLabour ), obtained from the

Table 2
number of employees (nLabour ) and their annual salary (PLabour );
Nomenclature used for TEA.
(CInsurance ), obtained from 1% of annualised CAPEX; (CLocalTaxes ), obtained
from 2% of annualised CAPEX; (CRoyalties ), obtained from 1% of Symbol Explanation Unit

annualised CAPEX. The labour costs were derived from using three op­ DCF Discounted cash flow –
erators per shift for a total of 3 shifts per day, for a total of 9 operators. NPV Net present value €
PI Profitability index €/€
All these calculations were carried out by using eqs. (14) to (24)
PT Payback time years
respectively. The internal rate of return was calculated based on equa­ IRR Internal rate of return %
tion (25). Table 1 below shows the input data and Table 2 shows the It Cash inflows €
parameters used in the technoeconomic analysis. Ot Cash outflows €
rd Discount rate parameter %
∑n
It − Q t nProject Project’s lifetime years
NPV = (6) Cinvest Investment cost €
(1 + rd ) t
t=0
PDME Price of dimethyl ether €
PMeOH Price of methanol €
PHPS Price of high-pressure steam €
QDME Quantity of dimethyl ether produced tonne/year
QMeOH Quantity of methanol produced tonne/year
Table 1 QHPS Quantity of high-pressure steam produced tonne/year
Input data used for TEA. CElectricity Cost of electricity €
PElectricity Price of electricity €/MWh
Data Value Reference QElectricity Quantity of electricity used MWh
PDME (€/t) 356 CCoolingWater Cost of cooling water €
[51] PCoolingWater Price of cooling water €/tonne
PMeOH (€/t) 158 QCoolingWater Quantity of cooling water used tonne
[52]
CDRMCatalyst Cost of dry reforming of methane catalyst €
PHPS (€/t) 13
[53] PDRMCatalyst Price of dry reforming of methane catalyst €/kg
PElectricity (€/MWh) 50 QDRMCatalyst Quantity of dry reforming of methane catalyst kg
[53] used
PCooling Water (€/t) 0.025 CDMECatalyst Cost of dimethyl ether synthesis catalyst €
[54]
PDMECatalyst Price of dimethyl ether synthesis catalyst €/kg
PDRM Catalyst (€/kg) 300 Estimated based on
QDMECatalyst Quantity of dimethyl ether synthesis catalyst kg
[55]
used
PDME Catalyst (€/kg) 200 Estimated based on
C CatalystCharge/ Cost of charging and recharging the catalysts €
[56,57]
Recharge
PCatalyst Charge/Recharge (€/kg) 2 Assumed
( ) P CatalystCharge/ Price of charging and recharging the catalysts €/kg
PWaste− water Processing €/m3 17 Estimated based on
Recharge
[53]
QDME+DRMCatalyst Total quantity of catalysts used in the process kg
PMaintenance (€/year) 5% of Annualised Capital
[49] C Waste − water Cost of wastewater processing €
Cost
PLabour (€/(person⋅year) ) 50,000 Processing
[50,58] P Waste − water Price of wastewater processing €/m3
PInsurance (€/year) 1% of Annualised Capital Processing
[49]
Cost QWaste− water Quantity of wastewater processing m3/hr
PLocal Taxes (€/year) 2% of Annualised Capital CMaintenance Cost of maintenance €
[49]
Cost CLabour Cost of labour €
PRoyalties (€/year) 1% of Annualised Capital nLabour Number of employees –
[49]
Cost PLabour Price of labour per employee €/employee
nLabour (Number of people) 9 CInsurance Cost of insurance €
[49]
CLocalTaxes Cost of local taxes €
rd (%) 4.75 CRoyalties Cost of royalties
[49] €
nProject (year) 20
[50]
CAPEX (€) 13,140,510.88 See supporting
information
rWorking Capital (%) 7.5 of total CAPEX Assumed based on [49]

4
L.-P. Merkouri et al. Fuel 319 (2022) 123741

∑n I t − Ot
t=0 (1+rd )t
addition, since steam would have been used as a feed material, this
PI = (7) would have made the products’ separation more difficult compared to
Cinvest
DRM as azeotropic mixtures would have been formed, thus more utilities
It = RDME + RMeOH + RHPS (8) would have been needed as well as larger, more complex downstream
separation and purification processes. However, it should be noted that
Ot = CElectricity + CCoolingWater + CDRMCatalyst + CDMECatalyst the aforementioned value of annual CO2 equivalent consumption is only
+ CCatalystCharge/Recharge + CWaste− waterProcessing + CMaintenance + CLabour a good estimation, and a more detailed life cycle assessment will be
needed in the future.
+ CInsurance + CLocalTaxes + CRoyalties (9)

Cinvest = CAPEX ×
(100 + rWorkingCapital )
(10) 3.2. Techno-economic analysis
100
The annual income for this project was comprised of producing
RDME = QDME × PDME (11)
824.7 kg/hr of DME, 7.85 kg/hr of MeOH and 7965 kg/hr of HP steam.
RMeOH = QMeOH × PMeOH (12) The total annual income from this process for a 100% production rate
was €3.49 m. The percentage breakdown of the revenue can be seen in
RHPS = QHPS × PHPS (13) Fig. 4. MeOH contributed very little to the total revenue, because of the
low quantity being produced as it is a by-product, due to the use of a
CElectricity = QElectricity × PElectricity (14) highly selective catalyst towards DME in the reactor. The total capital
costs were calculated with the aid of the equations in supporting in­
CCoolingWater = QCoolingWater × PCoolingWater (15) formation and they were found to be approximately €13.1 million.
Regarding the operating costs, there were many factors which affected
CDRMCatalyst = QDRMCatalyst × PDRMCatalyst (16) them including utilities, catalysts, waste processing, maintenance, la­
bour, insurance, taxes, and royalties. The operating expenses during
CDMECatalyst = QDMECatalyst × PDMECatalyst (17) normal production were calculated to be €1.012 m with the largest
contributors being the electricity, cost of labour, and maintenance at
CCatalystCharge/Recharge = Q(DME+DRMCatalyst) × PCatalystCharge/Recharge (18) €455 k, €450 k, and €32.85 k, respectively, by observing Fig. 5. Since the
cost of labour could not be changed, it would be wise for the plant to
CWaste− waterProcessing = QWaste− water × PWaste− waterProcessing (19) produce its own electricity, most likely with a CHP unit. When consid­
ering the total sales income and total operating expenses, the operating
0.05 × CAPEX
CMaintenance = (20) profit was calculated to be €2.479 m (during 100% production). The
nProject
complete summary of the operating costs can be found in the supporting
information.
CLabour = nLabour × PLabour (21)
Generally, a company bases its discount rate on the cost of capital,
0.01 × CAPEX which includes both the cost of debt incurred and the cost of equity.
CInsurance = (22) Therefore, a project of this scale would have typically been secured
nProject
against a 10-year AA grade corporate bond, with a coupon rate between
0.02 × CAPEX 0.75 and 10% [49]. A coupon rate of 4.75% was hence chosen
CLocalTaxes = (23) (Bloomberg price index 10-year AA bond) [61]. Therefore, by using a
nProject
discount rate of 4.75%, the cumulative NPV at the end of the project’s
0.01 × CAPEX lifespan was calculated to be €11.7 m and the PI 0.83€/€. For an
CRoyalties = (24)
nProject investor, a PI of 0.83€/€ means that for every €1 that is invested, they
will receive an additional €0.83. Whilst investors typically look for
∑n
It − Ot projects with a PI greater than 1€/€, the results of this paper strongly
IRR : NPV = =0 (25)
t=0 (1 + rd )t

3. Results and discussion

3.1. CO2 consumption

The key aspect of the project is CO2 utilisation, meaning that the
process ultimately should consume CO2. According to our Aspen Plus
model, the process chemistry consumes 22.66 t/hr of CO2 equivalent, or
0.0275 tonnes of CO2 equivalent/kg of DME produced. However, the
carbon content of the electricity also needs to be considered in order to
calculate the overall CO2 consumption. In the UK, electricity production
in 2020 was reported to have an average carbon footprint of 0.233 kg of
CO2 per kWh [59]. Hence, the net annual consumption of CO2 in the
process chemistry is equal to 198,509 tonnes of CO2 annually, but
because of the CO2 release associated with electricity used in the process
(2,122 tonnes of CO2 per year), the overall consumption of CO2 is at
196,387 tonnes. In comparison, a SMR process usually generates 9.7 kg
of CO2 per kg of H2 [60] and therefore, the 128.5 kg/hr of H2 generated
by the DRM process would have corresponded to 10,919 t/year of CO2.
A similar sized SMR would have thus incurred an additional €218.4 k per
year for the carbon tax (or €4.368 m over the plants lifespan). In Fig. 4. Percentage breakdown of the total revenue per revenue source.

5
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
Fig. 5. Percentage breakdown of the total costs per cost source.
Fig. 6. Project lifespan with internal rate of return (IRR) and project net pre­
sent value (NPV).
illustrated how a LFG-to-DME/MeOH process could have been profitable
even with the current state of the art. Consequently, the project is
appealing considering the profitability, the scale of the process, the
reduction in CO2 emissions and the avoidance of carbon taxes. Addi­
tionally, by observing Fig. 6 which shows the cumulative cash flow, a
payback time of approximately 10 years was found with a discount rate
of 4.75%. The payback time is the time in which the process has paid off
all capital debts, meaning that this process would have needed 10 years
to truly become profitable.
The IRR is a discount rate for which the project’s NPV is zero at the
end of a process lifespan (eq. (25)), and thus it is an indicator for the
maximum interest rate that could be paid to breakeven. This indicator is
valuable as it considers the time value of money; it reveals whether a
project is a good investment and allows for a comparison with different
types of projects. Furthermore, whilst larger projects typically have
larger NPVs, IRR allows for a comparison which is independent of the
project scale.
The IRR was calculated to be 12.47%, which is very reasonable, and
often investors see projects with IRRs over 10% as a ’safe bet’, because
typically a loan with an interest rate of 4.75% can be taken out [29].
6
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
Moreover, since the products of this process would have been supplied
to a strong and expanding market, this would have further gone to
reassure investors. Nevertheless, this did not account for the effects of
inflation, and so, the changes in products’ value and supply/demand
shifts can impact this assessment.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed in order to gain understanding
of the influence of changing process parameters on revenues and costs.
Therefore, the selection of parameters was based on creating more
favourable conditions in the two reactors to reduce the costs, but also to
increase the reactant conversion and selectivity towards the desired
products, thus increasing the revenues. As a result, by performing a
sensitivity analysis, we were able to choose these reactions conditions
that allowed us to be in a more economically favourable regime.
In terms of the DRM reactor, the chosen conditions were 1.013 bar
and 700℃ based on the 10 wt% Ni-substituted La2Zr2O7 pyrochlore
(LNZ10) performance [14,45]. Since the DRM process is endothermic,
increasing reactor temperature and decreasing pressure will increase the
reactants’ conversion. Many studies have dealt with the impact of
temperature on DRM and hence, it is known that by increasing the re­
action temperature, catalysts are more easily deactivated, but by
decreasing it, lower conversions are achieved [13,16]. However, the
effect of varying pressure has not been examined in-depth compared to
varying temperature. In addition, the DME synthesis is an exothermic
reaction, requiring high pressures and relatively low temperatures [18].
Since downstream processes are usually operated at higher pressure, it
may be economical to increase the pressure at which the DRM reaction
occurs, as pressurising processes upstream usually reduces overall utility
usage. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to observe the
impact of varying the DRM reactor pressure, DME reactor pressure and
temperature on the revenue of this process (i.e., production of DME and
MeOH, excluding HPS).
Fig. 7 shows the operating revenue with respect to DRM reactor
pressure. Whilst it would be appealing to increase the pressure of up­
stream processes, it was evident from that figure that an increased
pressure significantly reduced the hourly revenue of this process. In
particular, hourly revenue decreased exponentially between 1.013 bar
and 15 bar. The revenue decreased because the position of the equilib­
rium for the DRM reaction shifted to favour the reverse reaction, thus
producing less syngas. Since less syngas was being produced, the pro­
duction of DME and MeOH also decreased. When the DRM reaction was
taken at 1.013 bar, an hourly revenue of around €341 was yielded. By
Fig. 7. Operating revenue versus DRM reactor pressure.
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
increasing the DRM pressure to 15 bar, which is a typical pressure for
downstream processes [14], the hourly revenue dropped to €109.
Although utility usage is usually decreased when employing a process
with a cascading pressure configuration (utility costs were the largest
cost factor with this process configuration), in this process with a rela­
tively small LFG feed flowrate (2500 m3/hr), the reduction in utility
usage was far less significant compared with the large hourly revenue
loss. The revenue generated by producing DME and MeOH accounted for
80% of the total revenue sources, whereas utilities costs (mainly elec­
tricity) accounted for around 43% of total operating cost. Compared
with operating the DRM process at 1.013 bar, by operating the DRM
reaction at 15 bar, the utility costs reduced by around 20% and the
hourly revenue decreased by over 60%. By operating the DRM reaction
at higher pressures (at 52 bar), the utility costs were reduced by 45%,
whilst hourly revenue decreased by around 90%. This illustrated that
the savings made by reducing the utility usage was far less significant
than the loss of revenue by operating the DRM reaction at higher pres­
sures. Therefore, the choice of operating the DRM reaction at a low,
atmospheric condition was economically the best choice for this process.
Fig. 8 is a representation of the operating revenue versus the DME
reactor temperature at a DME reaction pressure of 50 bar and it was
showed that as temperature increased, the hourly revenue decreased.
Industrially, the DME reaction takes place at a temperature range be­
tween 200 and 300℃ [48] and so, by observing Fig. 8, it was apparent
that 200℃ is the most favourable temperature for that reaction in fair
agreement with the exothermic nature of the process. The hourly reve­
nue generated at 200℃ was approximately €376 compared to €340 at
250℃. Although the results showed the highest hourly revenue at
200℃, in reality, the DME reaction would have been carried out at
250℃, because of the increased reaction kinetics at a higher reaction
temperature [18,62]. Consequently, even if 200℃ was the most
favourable temperature, when simulating the process the reactor tem­
perature was set to 250℃. Additionally, at a lower temperature the
selected catalyst would not have performed as well mainly due to ki­
netics limitaions [18,46]. In general, though, as an outcome of this
study, more selective catalysts towards DME are required because they
could reduce the separation costs downstream of the DME reactor.
The impact of the DME reactor pressure with a constant temperature
of 250℃ on hourly revenue is presented in Fig. 9. It was illustrated that
as pressure increased, the hourly revenue increased too. Typically, the
DME reaction can occur at a pressure range between 20 and 70 bar [47]
and so, from the results it was evident that 70 bar was the most
favourable pressure for the reaction. However, the usual pressure of the
Fig. 8. Operating revenue versus DME reactor temperature.
7
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
Fig. 9. Operating revenue versus DME reactor pressure.
DME reaction used is 50 bar [62], beceause of the increased utility cost,
i.e. electricity for compressors, and increased CAPEX, i.e. more com­
pressors/intercoolers, larger DME reactor and larger distillation col­
umns. Therefore, even if 70 bar was the most favourable pressure, when
simulating the process the reactor pressure was set to 50 bar. The hourly
revenue generated at 70 bar was approximately €351, whereas at 50 bar
it was €291.
The prices of products of this process have fluctuated recently due to
the Covid-19 pandemic. As the market was trying to overcome the crisis,
DME and MeOH prices were almost doubled in autumn 2021 compared
to the initially selected values in spring 2020 [51,52]. All the previous
figures (Figs. 4 to 9) represent the economics in 2020. Therefore, the
calculations were carried out once more in order to determine the
profitability of this process at a different time period. To determine the
effect of price fluctuations on the overall process revenue, 2021 prices
for methanol and DME were used to evaluate the economic feasibility of
the process, in light of increased market prices for these products. The
total annual revenue from the products of this process using 2021 prices
was calculated to be is €5.056 m, the NPV €26.64 m, the IRR 20.09% and
the PI 1.87€/€. In other words, there was a 45% increase of the annual
income, leading to a payback period of approximately 6 years. These
results showed the huge impact of supply and demand shifts on the
profitability of industrial projects and signified the uncertainty of the
global market during these times. Using alternative sources of carbon
and hydrogen (such as landfill gas) for chemicals production can thus
have a stabilising effect on meeting chemicals demand locally.
The results of this work showed that the conversion of landfill waste
to DME was both profitable and net CO2 consuming. Many CO2 uti­
lisation technologies to date involve converting biomass into valuable
chemicals, such as gasoline, formic acid and methanol, while some also
investigate the use of biomass to produce electricity [28–31]. However,
most techno-economic studies surrounding biomass/CO2 utilisation
processes have shown them to be economically unfeasible and the
products’ price was a lot higher than their fossil-fuel derived counter­
parts, which was due to a plethora of reasons, including but not limited
to high catalysts’ costs, high operating costs, mainly electricity, and lack
of subsidies from the respective governments. On the other hand, this
process would have been even more profitable, if the UK had a higher
carbon tax and offered subsidies from the government, hence promoting
even more the greener technologies, similar to countries like Portugal
and Spain [31,63]. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the DME
production scale in the proposed plant is much lower compared to other
larger, conventional plants with a larger production. Nevertheless,
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
despite the scale of production being a key parameter in an economic
analysis, it is not directly proportional to the plant’s economic favour­
ability and environmental impacts. However, a larger production could
lead to a higher revenue due to larger product volumes being sold, and
to lower production costs, potentially achieving economies of scale.
This work further demonstrates how it is imperative that more syn­
ergies between CO2 utilisation and downstream upgrading should be
explored to decarbonise the chemical industry. In the biogas sector,
more efforts are needed to utilise waste streams to produce sustainable
chemicals and fuels. This process is a step closer to a renewable econ­
omy. The DME process can further be optimised in terms of its adapta­
tion for other biogas sources, integration with process intensification
technologies and improvement in terms of catalytic activity and dura­
bility in the DRM and DME reactors. The LFG-to-DME/MeOH process
presents itself as a novel approach to reducing emissions and tran­
sitioning towards a circular economy by utilising waste. Hence, this type
of process could be adopted across the country in waste treatment fa­
cilities. Whilst the process is economically feasible, added financial
support from governmental subsidies and incentives would further boost
its profitability. While the DME/MeOH produced by this process does
not drastically reduce the global CO2 emissions through CO2 consump­
tion, there are benefits such as avoided emissions (from alternative
processes using fossil fuel feedstocks) and easier separation (due to lack
of steam feed in the process chemistry). The results of this paper
demonstrate the effect of developments in catalyst performance on the
economic feasibility of alternative chemical production methods. GHG
utilisation techniques will further benefit from appropriate economic
incentives to increase profitability as well as to protect the environment.
4. Conclusions
The work presented in this paper analyses in-depth the techno-
economic feasibility of a robust, highly valuable green processing and
upgrading route for fuels and chemical production, the LFG-to-DME/
MeOH process. The techno-economic assessment showcases that this
production route is currently economically feasible. In total, the annual
income from this process was €3.49 m, coming mainly through the
revenue of selling DME and HPS. The annual operating expenses for this
process were €1.012 m. While there were several sources of operating
expenses, the largest factors were due to the cost of labour and elec­
tricity at €450 k and €455 k, respectively. Considering the revenue and
costs, the operating profit was calculated to be €2.477 m per year. With a
discount rate of 4.75%, the NPV was found to be €11.70 m at the end of
the project’s 20-year lifespan and the PI 0.83€/€. The process was found
to have a payback time of around 10 years, which was promising
considering the scale of the process. The IRR was determined as 12.47%.
By considering all sources of emissions in the process, annual GHG
consumption was calculated as 196,387 tonnes of CO2 equivalent and
avoided €3.928 m of carbon taxes. The sensitivity analysis revealed that
the DME/MeOH production was incredibly sensitive to both DRM and
DME reaction conditions. Herein, it was illustrated that the DRM was
more profitable at atmospheric pressure and that the DME reaction
occurring at 250℃ and 50 bar had the least compromises. In other
words, these conditions gave the right balance between the utilities
needed to achieve these demanding conditions and the amount of
products being produced and their corresponding revenue. The profit­
able LFG-to-DME/MeOH process presents itself as a novel approach to
reducing emissions and transitioning towards a circular economy.
Nevertheless, more synergies between biomass/CO2 utilisation and
upgrading should be explored for further decarbonisation of chemicals
synthesis.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Loukia-Pantzechroula Merkouri: Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Huseyin Ahmet: Conceptualization,
8
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft.
Tomas Ramirez Reina: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Funding acquisition. Melis S. Duyar: Conceptualization,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
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
Financial support for this work was provided by the Department of
Chemical and Process Engineering and the Doctoral College of the
University of Surrey.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123741.
References
[1] IEA. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Overview. IEA 2020. https://www.iea.
org/reports/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-overview (accessed November
16, 2020).
[2] Boucher O, Friedlingstein P, Collins B, Shine KP. The indirect global warming
potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation.
Environ Res Lett 2009;4(4):044007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/
044007.
[3] Dlugokencky E. Trends in atmospheric methane. Glob Monit Lab - Carbon Cycle
Greenh Gases 2021. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/.
[4] Dlugokencky Ed TP. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. NOAA 2021. ftp://
aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_gl.txt (accessed July 6, 2021).
[5] European Commission. Orientations Towards the First Strategic Plan for Horizon
Europe. European 2019:1–164. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/re
search_and_innovation/strategy_on_research_and_innovation/documents/ec_rtd_he
-orientations-towards-strategic-plan_102019.pdf (accessed November 25, 2021).
[6] Capodaglio AG, Bolognesi S. Ecofuel feedstocks and their prospects. Elsevier Ltd.
2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102728-8.00002-4.
[7] Lau CS, Tsolakis A, Wyszynski ML. Biogas upgrade to syn-gas (H2-CO) via dry and
oxidative reforming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(1):397–404. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.086.
[8] le Saché E, Johnson S, Pastor-Pérez L, Amini Horri B, Reina T. Biogas upgrading via
dry reforming over a Ni-Sn/CeO2-Al2O3 catalyst: Influence of the biogas source.
Energies 2019;12(6):1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12061007.
[9] Baena-Moreno FM, le Saché E, Pastor-Pérez L, Reina TR. Membrane-based
technologies for biogas upgrading: a review. Environ Chem Lett 2020;18(5):
1649–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01036-3.
[10] Baena-Moreno FM, Rodríguez-Galán Mónica, Vega F, Vilches LF, Navarrete B.
Review: recent advances in biogas purifying technologies. Int J Green Energy 2019;
16(5):401–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2019.1572610.
[11] Quadrelli EA, Centi G, Duplan J-L, Perathoner S. Carbon dioxide recycling:
Emerging large-scale technologies with industrial potential. ChemSusChem 2011;4
(9):1194–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201100473.
[12] Kumar N, Shojaee M, Spivey JJ. Catalytic bi-reforming of methane: From
greenhouse gases to syngas. Curr Opin Chem Eng 2015;9:8–15. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.coche.2015.07.003.
[13] Pakhare D, Spivey J. A review of dry (CO2) reforming of methane over noble metal
catalysts. Chem Soc Rev 2014;43(22):7813–37.
[14] le Saché E, Pastor-Pérez L, Watson D, Sepúlveda-Escribano A, Reina TR. Ni
stabilised on inorganic complex structures: superior catalysts for chemical CO2
recycling via dry reforming of methane. Appl Catal B Environ 2018;236:458–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.05.051.
[15] Jensen C, Duyar MS. Thermodynamic Analysis of Dry Reforming of Methane for
Valorization of Landfill Gas and Natural Gas. Energy Technol 2021;9(7):2100106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.202100106.
[16] Usman M, Wan Daud WMA, Abbas HF. Dry reforming of methane: Influence of
process parameters - A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:710–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.026.
[17] Arora S, Prasad R. An overview on dry reforming of methane: Strategies to reduce
carbonaceous deactivation of catalysts. RSC Adv 2016;6(110):108668–88.
[18] Catizzone E, Bonura G, Migliori M, Frusteri F, Giordano G. CO2 recycling to
dimethyl ether: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Molecules 2018;23:1–28. https://
doi.org/10.3390/molecules23010031.
[19] Dimethyl Ether Market - Forecast (2021 - 2026). IndustryArc 2020. https://www.
industryarc.com/Report/17677/dimethyl-ether-market.html.
L.-P. Merkouri et al.
[20] Leonzio G. Methanol synthesis: Optimal solution for a better efficiency of the
process. Processes 2018;6(3):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6030020.
[21] Methanax. Methanol Market. Fortune Bus Insights 2016. https://www.methanex.
com/sites/default/files/investor/MEOH Presentation - May.pdf.
[22] Statista. Production capacity of methanol worldwide from 2018 to 2020, with a
forecast for 2030. GlobalData 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/
1065891/global-methanol-production-capacity/ (accessed February 1, 2022).
[23] Katurcioglu TY, Celik M. A Review on Synthesis of Dimethyl Ether From Syngas
Over Bifunctional/Hybrid Catalysts. Glob J Pure Appl Chem Res 2019;7:1–24.
[24] Giuliano A, Catizzone E, Freda C. Process simulation and environmental aspects of
dimethyl ether production from digestate-derived syngas. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 2021;18:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020807.
[25] Ogawa T, Inoue N, Shikada T, Ohno Y. Direct Dimethyl Ether Synthesis 2003;12:
219–27.
[26] Gogate MR. The direct dimethyl ether (DME) synthesis process from syngas I.
Process feasibility and chemical synergy in one-step LPDMEtm process. Pet. Sci
Technol 2018;36(8):547–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2018.1428628.
[27] N. Schoedel E. Haidegger H. Schmigalle C. Thaller H. Schmaderer T. Akos Method
for producing dimethyl ether from methane US 2015/0045456A1, 2015.
[28] Dimitriou I, Goldingay H, Bridgwater AV. Techno-economic and uncertainty
analysis of Biomass to Liquid (BTL) systems for transport fuel production. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;88:160–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.023.
[29] J.R. Copa C.E. Tuna J.L. Silveira R.A.M. Boloy P. Brito V. Silva et al. Techno-
Economic Assessment of the Use of Syngas Generated from Biomass to Feed an
Internal Combustion Engine Energies 13 12 3097 10.3390/en13123097.
[30] Giuliano A, Freda C, Catizzone E. Techno-economic assessment of bio-syngas
production for methanol synthesis: A focus on the water–gas shift and carbon
capture sections. Bioengineering 2020;7:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/
bioengineering7030070.
[31] Baena-Moreno FM, Pastor-Pérez L, Zhang Z, Reina TR. Stepping towards a low-
carbon economy. Formic acid from biogas as case of study. Appl Energy 2020;268:
115033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115033.
[32] Baena-Moreno FM, Gonzalez-Castaño M, Arellano-García H, Reina TR. Exploring
profitability of bioeconomy paths: Dimethyl ether from biogas as case study.
Energy 2021;225:120230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120230.
[33] Asen E. Carbon Taxes in Europe. Tax Found 2020. https://taxfoundation.org/
carbon-taxes-in-europe-2020/ (accessed December 1, 2021).
[34] Khan M. EU leaders battle over carbon price as energy costs soar. Financ Times
2021. https://www.ft.com/content/eefea72d-0441-4edf-9d56-2e4d835cd4dc?
shareType=nongift (accessed December 18, 2021).
[35] Pimm AJ, Yang J, Widjaja K, Cockerill TT. Hydrogen Technology State of the Art
2019:47.
[36] Poelhekke S. How expensive should CO2 be? Fuel for the political debate on
optimal climate policy. Heliyon 2019;5(11):e02936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2019.e02936.
[37] Peral E, Martín M. Optimal Production of Dimethyl Ether from Switchgrass-Based
Syngas via Direct Synthesis. Ind Eng Chem Res 2015;54(30):7465–75. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00823.
[38] HAN Y, ZHANG H, YING W, FANG D. Modeling and Simulation of Production
Process on Dimethyl Ether Synthesized from Coal-based Syngas by One-step
Method. Chinese J Chem Eng 2009;17(1):108–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1004-
9541(09)60041-0.
[39] Diemer RB, Luyben WL. Design and control of a methyl acetate process using
carbonylation of dimethyl ether. Ind Eng Chem Res 2010;49(23):12224–41.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101583j.
[40] Ma Y, McLaughlan M, Zhang N, Li J. Novel feasible path optimisation algorithms
using steady-state and/or pseudo-transient simulations. Comput Chem Eng 2020;
143:107058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.107058.
[41] Bîldea CS, Győrgy R, Brunchi CC, Kiss AA. Optimal design of intensified processes
for DME synthesis. Comput Chem Eng 2017;105:142–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compchemeng.2017.01.004.
[42] Moore D. Viridor invests £2m in innovation to create transport fuels from landfill
gas. Circular 2019. https://www.circularonline.co.uk/news/viridor-invests-2m-in-
innovation-to-create-transport-fuels-from-landfill-gas/ (accessed February 2,
2022).
Fuel 319 (2022) 123741
[43] Doherty J. Viridor signs ‘landfill gas to transport fuel’ deal. LetsrecycleCom 2019.
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/viridor-signs-landfill-gas-transport-fuel-deal/
(accessed November 25, 2021).
[44] Baena-Moreno FM, Pastor-Pérez L, Wang Q, Reina TR. Bio-methane and bio-
methanol co-production from biogas: A profitability analysis to explore new
sustainable chemical processes. J Clean Prod 2020;265:121909. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121909.
[45] Reina TR, le Saché E, Watson D, Pastor Perez L, Sepulveda Escribano A. Catalysts
for the reforming of gaseous mixtures. GB1704017.1, 2017. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/GB1704017.1.
[46] Peinado C, Liuzzi D, Retuerto M, , Peña MA, Rojas S. Study of catalyst bed
composition for the direct synthesis of dimethyl ether from CO2-rich syngas. Chem
Eng J Adv 2020;4:100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceja.2020.100039.
[47] Khoshbin R, Haghighi M. Direct conversion of syngas to dimethyl ether as a green
fuel over ultrasound-assisted synthesized CuO-ZnO-Al2O3/HZSM-5 nanocatalyst:
Effect of active phase ratio on physicochemical and catalytic properties at different
process conditions. Catal Sci Technol 2014;4(6):1779–92.
[48] García-Trenco A, Martínez A. Direct synthesis of DME from syngas on hybrid
CuZnAl/ZSM-5 catalysts: New insights into the role of zeolite acidity. Appl Catal A
Gen 2012;411–412:170–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2011.10.036.
[49] Sinnott RK. Coulson & Richardson’s Chemical Engineering Design. 4th ed. Oxford:
Elsevier; 2005.
[50] Towler G, Sinnott R. Estimating Revenues and Production Costs. 2013. https://doi.
org/10.1016/b978-0-08-096659-5.00008-0.
[51] CEIC. China Market Price: Monthly Avg: Organic Chemical Material: Dimethyl
Ether: 99.0% or Above. CEIC 2021. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/china-
petroleum–chemical-industry-association-petrochemical-price-organic-chemical-
material/cn-market-price-monthly-avg-organic-chemical-material-dimethyl-ether-
990-or-above (accessed November 29, 2021).
[52] CEIC. China Market Price: Monthly Avg: Organic Chemical Material: Methanol,
Methyl Alcohol. 2021 n.d. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/china-petroleum–
chemical-industry-association-petrochemical-price-organic-chemical-material/cn-
market-price-monthly-avg-organic-chemical-material-methanol-methyl-alcohol.
[53] Towler G, Sinnott R. Utilities and Energy Efficient Design. 2013. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-08-096659-5.00003-1.
[54] Michailos S, McCord S, Sick V, Stokes G, Styring P. Dimethyl ether synthesis via
captured CO2 hydrogenation within the power to liquids concept: A techno-
economic assessment. Energy Convers Manag 2019;184:262–76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.046.
[55] Lanthanum(III) oxide. Sigma Aldrich 2021. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/
en/product/aldrich/l4000 (accessed December 3, 2021).
[56] Alfa Aesar. Zeolite. Alfa Aesar 2021;35. https://www.alfa.com/en/search/?
q=zeolite (accessed November 29, 2021).
[57] Copper Cu based CuO/ZnO/Al2O3 Cu-Zn-Al low pressure methanol synthesis
catalyst. AlibabaCom 2021. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Copper-Cu-
based-CuO-ZnO-Al2O3_1600266991543.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normal_offer.
d_title.19096e80bgWBGb (accessed November 29, 2021).
[58] Stat 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/
earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/indexoflabourcostsperhourilch/julytoseptem
ber2019experimentalstatistics.
[59] Department for Business E& IS. Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020.
Gov Digit Serv 2020:1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 (accessed December 3, 2021).
[60] Muradov N. Low-carbon production of hydrogen from fossil fuels. Elsevier Ltd
2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-78242-361-4.00017-0.
[61] Bloomberg. United Kingdom Rates & Bonds. Bloom LP 2021. http://www.
bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk (accessed May 5,
2021).
[62] Ohno Y, Yoshida M, Shikada T, Inokoshi O, Ogawa T, Inoue N. New direct synthesis
technology for DME (dimethyl ether) and its application technology. JFE Tech Rep
2006;8:34–40.
[63] Baena-Moreno FM, Zhang Z, Zhang XP, Reina TR. Profitability analysis of a novel
configuration to synergize biogas upgrading and Power-to-Gas. Energy Convers
Manag 2020;224:113369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113369.