Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Deployment of integrated Power-to-X and CO2 utilization systems:

Techno-economic assessment of synthetic natural gas and methanol cases
Calin-Cristian Cormos
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Babes-Bolyai University, Arany Janos 11, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

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

Keywords: Achieving the climate neutrality requires decisive actions in curbing CO2 emissions. Various possible strategies
CO2 capture and utilization can be exploited for this target such as boosting renewable sources, increasing energy efficiency for both con­
Power-to-X technologies version and utilisation steps, deploying Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) applications. Power-to-X
Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG)
(P2X) and CO2 utilization technologies got significant attention as options to reduce fossil CO2 emissions and
Methanol
produce sustainable chemicals. This work assesses large-scale synthetic natural gas (SNG) and methanol pro­
Techno-economic assessment
duction from renewable H2 and captured CO2 from a techno-economic perspective. Sizes of investigated systems
are 500 MWth for the SNG case and 100000 t/y for the methanol case to be relevant from an industrial
perspective. The assessed concepts were modelled and simulated in a thermally integrated design for optimi­
zation of the overall energy utilization. The key performance indicators were calculated based on overall mass &
energy balances. As results show, the SNG and methanol production systems from green H2 and captured CO2
have high energy efficiency (e.g., about 54–58 %) and very high CO2 conversion yields (about 96–99 %). From an
economic point of view, these solutions are not yet competitive to existing fossil-based systems (e.g., production
costs are about 16 €/GJ for SNG and about 755 €/t for renewable methanol compared to average 10 €/GJ for
natural gas and 450–500 €/t for fossil methanol).

1. Introduction
The necessity to curb the fossil CO2 emissions is extremely urgent to
combat global warming and to achieve global climate neutrality. In this
respect, the development of a low-carbon economy represents a para­
mount priority for climate neutrality [1]. To reduce the world fossil CO2
emissions, different systems can be practically implemented [2] e.g.,
further expansion of renewable energy utilization (e.g., solar, wind,
biomass), enhancing the overall energy efficiency of both conversion
and utilization systems, wide-scale implementation of Carbon Capture,
Utilization and Storage (CCUS) applications [3] etc. For successful
deployment and wide-scale implementation of low carbon applications,
relevant technical, financial and political mechanisms are introduced.
For example, at the level of European Union (EU), several tools are
already implemented (e.g., The European Green Deal [4], EU Emission
Trading System [5] etc.) to achieve the long-term target to become a
climate-neutral economy.
The Power-to-X (P2X) technologies utilize renewables (e.g., solar
and wind) to generate electricity which then is used to produce green
hydrogen (via water electrolysis) as a key chemical to transform the
captured CO2 into valuable sustainable chemicals e.g., Synthetic Natural
Gas (SNG), methanol, ammonia, synthetic fuels etc. [6]. The P2X tech­
nologies are seen as very promising solutions to increase the renewable
energy contribution within the whole energy system, to enforce the
energy storage capabilities together with tackling the time variability of
solar and wind-based renewable energy sources [7]. For example, the
time intermittency of renewable energy can be successfully master by
using the surplus of renewable power (difficult to be efficiently store) to

Abbreviations: BFW, Boiler feed water; CAPEX, Capital expenditures; CB, Reference capital cost; CCC, Cold composite curve; CCS, Carbon capture and storage;
CCUS, Carbon capture, utilization and storage; CE, Capital cost of evaluated equipment; CEPCI, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index; CPU, Carbon processing unit;
CW, Cooling water; DAC, Direct air capture; EOR, Enhanced oil recovery; HCC, Hot composite curve; IEAGHG, International Energy Agency – Greenhouse Gas R&D
Program; LCOMeOH, Levelized cost of methanol; LCOSNG, Levelized cost of SNG; LHV, Lower heating value; M, Exponent in the capital cost calculation; MeOH,
Methanol; NETL, National Energy Technology Laboratory; NPV, Net present value; O&M, Operation & maintenance cost; OPEX, Operational expenditures; QB,
Production capacity of evaluated plant; P2X, Power-to-X technologies; SCI, Specific capital investment; SECO2, Specific CO2 emissions; SNG, Synthetic natural gas;
ηCO2, CO2 conversion rate; ηH2, H2 conversion rate; ηGlobal, Overal thermal efficiency; ηPower, Net power efficiency; ηThermal, Overall thermal efficiency.
E-mail address: calin.cormos@ubbcluj.ro.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120943
Received 21 December 2022; Received in revised form 12 May 2023; Accepted 8 June 2023
Available online 13 June 2023
1359-4311/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-C. Cormos
produce green H2 which can be store for covering peak energy demands
or chemically converted to various sustainable energy carriers [8].
The CCUS applications are predicted to have a prominent role in
achieving the climate neutrality by diminishing the fossil CO2 emissions
followed by its transformation to useful products (chemicals or energy
carriers) or to be geologically stored (e.g., storage in depleted oil and gas
fields or in saline aquifers, utilisation for Enhanced Oil Recovery - EOR)
[9]. The CO2 utilization technologies are also important for the future low-
carbon economy by transforming the captured fossil CO2 (especially from
hard-to-decarbonize industrial applications such as cement, metallurgy
etc.) into valuable chemicals/energy carriers [10]. For most of CO2 utili­
zation technologies, a hydrogen stream is needed as reactant to convert the
carbon dioxide into various organic compounds [11]. Fig. 1 displays the
overall layout of an integrated CO2 capture (either from energy conversion
processes or Direct Air Capture - DAC) with P2X and CO2 utilization sys­
tems for producing various sustainable chemicals/energy carriers.
The proposed integration of P2X and CO2 utilization technologies
shows great potential for an efficient and low carbon exploitation of
renewable energy sources coupled with the energy storage capabilities
(as various synthetic chemicals/energy carriers) [12]. The usage of
renewable electricity into CO2 utilization technologies is expected to
have an important role in the near future. For instance, the electro­
chemical and plasma reactors are promising solutions for electrification
of relevant industrial sectors such as chemical applications [13]. In
addition, renewable low carbon electricity can be used to provide both
heat and green hydrogen (via water electrolysis) for various chemical
processes such as synthesis of basic C1 - C5 chemicals [14]. Further­
more, the electrification of industrial processes is expected to be
extended also to other energy-intensive sectors such as cement and iron
& steel production to reduce the CO2 emissions [15–16]. The large-scale
deployment of CO2 utilization technologies will also significantly
contribute in short term to the expansion of renewable energy sources in
their various forms such as geothermal, solar, wind, biomass etc. [17].
The present evaluation is assessing the techno-economic connota­
tions of sustainable SNG and methanol synthesis using green hydrogen
and captured CO2. The production capacities of investigated systems are
500 MWth for the SNG concept and 100000 t/y for the methanol concept
to be comparable with similar fossil-based alternatives (e.g., natural gas-
based methanol production). The main reason for selecting these
different production capacity units was related to the market particu­
larities for these two products (thermal duty for SNG to be compatible
with the natural gas market, since for methanol, a capacity of 100000 t/
Fig. 1. P2X and CO2 utilization technologies for production of carbon–neutral chemicals.
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
y is currently a conventional size for fossil methanol plants). Compared
to the current state of the art reported in the literature [18–19], these
production capacities are appropriate for the large-scale deployment of
integrated P2X and CO2 utilization technologies. The chemical reactions
involved in the SNG [20] and methanol [21] production systems are
presented below:
CO2 + 4H2 →CH4 + 2H2 O ΔH = − 165.0kJ/mol (1)
CO2 + 3H2 →CH3 OH + H2 O ΔH = − 49.8kJ/mol (2)
In the present work, these two illustrative sustainable SNG and
methanol production systems from captured CO2 and green hydrogen (e.
g., generated via water electrolysis using solar/wind power) were
assessed using ChemCAD process flow modelling software. The simu­
lation results are further validated in comparison to literature-based
experimental/industrial results [22–24]. In term of optimizing the
overall energy utilization, a comprehensive thermal integration evalu­
ation (using the pinch methodology) was done to find the best utilisation
of available heat sources of the plants [25]. The mass and energy bal­
ances for both investigated P2X - CO2 utilisation cases were subse­
quently employed for the calculation of key techno-economic and
environmental performance indexes in view of assessing the overall
feasibility of P2X technologies to deliver sustainable energy carriers
production systems [26].
As relevant novelty aspects of the present analysis, it worth mention
the following two illustrative objectives: (i) to develop an in-depth
techno-economic and environmental evaluation method to be applied
for an overall assessment of integrated P2X and CO2 utilization tech­
nologies for producing sustainable energy carriers; (ii) to assess two
illustrative standard large-scale integrated P2X and CO2 utilization
concepts for SNG and methanol production to deliver sustainable energy
carriers/chemicals production processes with greater thermal energy
efficiencies and reduced CO2 emissions in contrast to the conventional
fossil-fuelled systems (considered here as benchmark cases).
2. Plant configurations, design specifications and thermal
integration analysis
2.1. Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production plant
The SNG process makes use of Sabatier catalytic reaction between
hydrogen and carbon dioxide which takes place at 300–400 ◦ C and high
C.-C. Cormos
pressure (30–50 bar) [27]. The catalytic methanation reaction is
exothermic which underlines the positive energy balance of the overall
system (available heat sources for steam generation). After the reaction
stage, the gas is treated for energy recovery (steam generation),
condensate removal and compressing for further usage. The generated
low-pressure steam (3–5 bar) is used to cover the plant heat demands
and the excess is expanded for power generation as a process by-product.
Fig. 2 displays the conceptual layout of the SNG production plant from
captured carbon dioxide and renewable (green) hydrogen produce from
water electrolysis using renewable power (wind and solar).
Green hydrogen used in the CO2 methanation process is produced by
water electrolysis using renewable power with a high purity (>99 %
vol.) [28]. The purity of captured CO2 is considering the proposed
specifications within Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects (>95 %
vol.). Both gaseous reactants are to be compressed and pre-heated before
the methanation process. Table 1 shows the relevant design specifica­
tions used for the sustainable SNG production plant.
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) was used as thermodynamic model for
the overall process simulation [32]. The SNG production plant was
thermally integrated using the pinch analysis methodology [33] which
make usage of process-to-process heat exchange in order to optimize the
overall energy utilization within the system. The available heat sources
within the plant (e.g., reaction heat produced in the methanation reactor,
SNG cooling stage etc.) were employed for steam generation purposes.
The generated steam was further used for power generation which was
employed to cover the plant ancillary electricity consumption, the surplus
being exported to the grid as a valuable by-product of the SNG process.
2.2. Methanol production plant
The methanol synthesis from H2 and captured CO2 involves a cata­
lytic reaction at 200–300 ◦ C and high pressure (50–80 bar) [34]. As in
Fig. 2. Design of SNG production plant.
3
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
the case of SNG process, the catalytic reaction of methanol synthesis
from carbon dioxide and hydrogen is exothermic which gives a positive
energy balance (available heat sources within the plant) to the overall
process. After the reaction stage, the gas flow is cooled down (via steam
generation) followed by a gas–liquid separation (flash). The resulting
liquid stream (about 60 % wt. aqueous methanol) was further separated
by distillation into methanol as the final product (purity higher than
99.9 % wt.) and residual water. The gas stream (containing unreacted
gaseous species such as hydrogen and carbon dioxide) is recycled back
to methanol synthesis reactor. A fraction of recycle gas stream is purged
(to avoid impurities build-up), the purged steam being combusted for
energy recovery purposes (to cover the process energy demand). The
generated steam is used to cover the plant heat demands (e.g., reboiler
duty of methanol distillation column) and the excess is expanded for
power generation to be exported to the grid as a valuable additional by-
product of the overall methanol synthesis process. The conceptual
layout of methanol production from captured CO2 and renewable
(green) water-electrolytic H2 is presented in Fig. 3.
As for the SNG synthesis concept, the purities of both reactants
(green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide) are similar to the rele­
vant industrial projects in the field (e.g., water electrolysis and CCUS
applications). Prior to the methanol synthesis, both reactants are com­
pressed according to the process requirements to about 80 bar [20]. For
the methanol synthesis, a kinetic model available in relevant literature
reference [35] was implemented. Table 2 shows the most relevant
design specifications used in the methanol production plant [36].
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) was used as thermodynamic model for
overall process simulation [32]. The methanol production concept was
also thermally integrated using the pinch analysis to enhance the global
energy utilization within the overall process.
C.-C. Cormos Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943

Table 1
Design specifications of SNG production concept.
Unit Parameters

Captured CO2 composition (vol.)
Water electrolysis unit for hydrogen
production [28]
H2 and CO2 compression [20]
Methanation reactor [29]
Cooling stage and flash separation [20]
SNG compression unit [30]
Steam generator and steam cycle [31]
Heat recovery (heat exchanger network)
[20]
99.94 % carbon dioxide, 0.05 % nitrogen, 0.01 % water
Specific power consumption: 54 kWh/kg H2Hydrogen purity: 99.90 % vol.
Compressor efficiency: 80 %
Ni-based catalystReactor temperature & pressure: 300 ◦ C & 50 barReactor model: Kinetic calculationsThermal mode: heat exchanger
(steam generation)Pressure drop: 1 bar
Outlet temperature & pressure: 40 ◦ C & 48 barFlash specifications: inlet pressure and temperature
Final delivery pressure: 60 barCompressor efficiency: 85 %
Live steam temperature & pressure: 250–280 ◦ C & 3 barFinal pressure for steam condensation: 0.046 barEnergy efficiency of the steam
turbine: 86 %Turbine steam wetness: max. 10 %Cooling water inlet/outlet temperature: 15 ◦ C/25 ◦ C
Minimum temperature difference: ΔTmin. = 10 ◦ CHeat exchanger pressure drop: 2–4 % of inlet value

Fig. 3. Design of methanol production plant.

3. Techno-economic assessment methodology
3.1. Technical and environmental performance indexes
The developed ChemCAD mathematical models were further vali­
dated in comparation to the industrial/experimental results for the SNG
and methanol synthesis [22–24,35]. No relevant discrepancies were
noticed in terms of main performance indexes (e.g., hydrogen and car­
bon dioxide conversion rates, process operational parameters of the
synthesis reactors, product purities etc.). For instance, in case of SNG
process, the experimental reactant (H2 and CO2) conversions reported in
the literature are in the range of 95 % to 99 % [22–23]. The conversion
yields reported in this work (98–99 %) are within this interval (see
Table 4). The same conclusion can be draw about the volumetric
composition of produced SNG stream (94.75 % CH4 reported in this
work following modelling and simulation vs. 85–99 % CH4 reported
experimentally). In respect to the methanol case, the overall process
conversion is in the range of experimental analysis (97 % vs. 93–98 %
[24]).
After overall process modelling, simulation, validation and heat
integration assessment, the generated mass & energy balances of SNG
and methanol production concepts were employed for calculation of key
techno-economic and environmental performance indexes according to
the validated methodology within the field [24,36–37]. The following
technical and environmental performance indexes were used (together
with correspondent mathematical equations used for their numerical
quantification):
- Thermal SNG/methanol efficiency (ηThermal) is determined as a ratio
of SNG/methanol thermal output and the hydrogen thermal input (both
input and output expressed as thermal energy flows equal to the mass
flowrate multiply by its lower heating value):
SNG/methanol thermal output
ηThermal = *100 (3)
Hydrogen thermal input
- Net power efficiency (ηPower ) of both SNG and methanol concepts is
computed as a ratio of net power output (which is calculated as gross
power output minus the plant ancillary electricity consumption) and the
hydrogen thermal input:

4
C.-C. Cormos Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943

Table 2
Design specifications of methanol production concept.
Unit Parameters

Captured CO2 composition (vol.)
Water electrolysis unit for hydrogen production
[28]
H2 and CO2 compression [21]
Methanol synthesis reactor [35]
Cooling stage, depressurization, flash separation
& purge [21]
Methanol distillation [24]
Steam generator and steam cycle [21]
Heat recovery (heat exchanger network) [21]
99.94 % carbon dioxide, 0.05 % nitrogen, 0.01 % water
Specific power consumption: 54 kWh/kg H2Hydrogen purity: 99.90 % vol.
Compressor efficiency: 80 %
Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalystReactor temperature & pressure: 220◦ C & 80 barReactor model: Kinetic calculations Thermal mode: heat
exchanger (steam generation)Pressure drop: 1 bar
Outlet temperature & pressure: 35◦ C & 1.5 barPurge ratio: 1 %Purge usage: energy recovery (combustion)
Methanol purity: 99.9 % wt.Distillation column: 12 stagesTop column pressure: 1.2 barColumn feed temperature: 80◦ CMethanol
recovery yield: 99 %
Live steam temperature & pressure: 200-250◦ C & 3 barFinal pressure for steam condensation: 0.046 barEnergy efficiency of the
steam turbine: 86 %Turbine steam wetness: max. 10 %Cooling water inlet/outlet temperature: 15◦ C/25◦ C
Minimum temperature difference: △Tmin. = 10◦ CHeat exchanger pressure drop: 2–4 % of inlet value

Table 3 - Global plant energy efficiency (ηGlobal ) is determined as a sum of

Key economic specifications for evaluated SNG/methanol production systems. above-defined SNG/methanol thermal efficiency and the net power
Electricity cost (import/export) 85 €/MWh [24] energy efficiency (net power output produced additionally to the SNG
Hydrogen cost 2333 €/t [28] and methanol):
Carbon dioxide cost 0 €/t [21]
Oxygen price (as revenue from water 178 €/t [21] ηGlobal = ηThermal + ηPower (5)
electrolysis)
SNG catalyst cost 12.50 €/kg [43] - CO2 utilization ratio (ηCO2 ) is determined as a ratio of the carbon
MeOH catalyst cost 128.80 €/kg [44] molar flowrate from SNG/methanol product streams (as synthetized
Catalyst lifetime 2 y (SNG)/3 y (MeOH) [24] energy carriers which contain carbon) and the total input carbon dioxide
Cost of Boiler Feed Water (BFW) 0.10 €/t [20] molar flow (as raw material):
Cost of Cooling Water (CW) 0.025 €/t [20]
Cost of CW chemical treatment 0.0025 €/m3 [20] Converted carbon molar flow
Cost of BFW chemical treatment 45.00 k€/month [20] ηCO2 = *100 (6)
Inlet carbon dioxide molar flow
Operation personnel (only SNG/MeOH 20 (SNG)/36 (MeOH) [20–21]
production) - H2 utilization ratio (ηH2 ) is quantified as a ratio of the converted
Direct labour cost as annual amount per 40.00 k€ [21]
hydrogen molar flow into SNG/methanol product streams and the total
operator
Administrative costs, as percentage of direct 30 % [21] input hydrogen molar flow:
labour
Converted hydrogen molar flow
Maintenance costs, as annual capital cost share 2 % (SNG)/5 % [21] ηH2 = *100 (7)
(MeOH) Inlet hydrogen molar flow
Plant capacity factor 8000 h/y [24]
- Specific CO2 emission factor (SECO2 ) is defined as a ratio of emitted
Internal rate of return 8% [24]
Cost of CO2 transport and storage 10 €/t [45] CO2 mass flowrate per SNG/methanol mass outputs of both investigated
Carbon emission tax 50–100 €/t [46] concepts:
Plant construction period 2 years [24]
Capital cost proportion per each construction 50 %, 50 % [24] Emitted CO2 mass flow
SECO2 = *100 (8)
year SNG/ methanol mass output
Operation life of investigated SNG/methanol 25 years [24]
plants
3.2. Economic performance indicators and key economic specifications

Table 4 As economic evaluation procedure used in the present work, the

Key technical performance indicators of SNG plant. generally validated and consolidated methodology of decarbonized en­
Plant technical parameter Unit Value ergy conversion and utilisation processes developed by the International
CO2 consumption t/h 91.84 Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), National
CO2 conversion rate % 99.00 Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and from other relevant litera­
H2 consumption t/h 16.82 ture sources [38–40] was employed. The next indexes were used to
H2 conversion rate % 98.00
express the overall economic performance:
Power consumption for water electrolysis (green H2) kWh/kg 54.00
Total energy consumption for green H2 production (A) MWe 908.10 - Capital cost (CE ) of an on-site process equipment (e.g., reactor,
SNG output t/h 34.30 separation, compressor etc.) having a specified size (Q) is determined by
SNG LHV MJ/kg 52.45 the cost correlation method which employs the base cost (CB ) related to
SNG thermal output (B) MWth 500.00 the base size (QB ) in accordance to the next equation [25]:
Gas decompression MWe 3.05
Steam turbine power block MWe 29.77 ( )M
Q
Total power production (C) MWe 32.82 CE = CB * (9)
Net global energy efficiency (B þ C/A * 100) % 58.67
QB
Specific CO2 emissions kg/kg SNG 0.05
For CAPEX calculation, in addition to the investment for on-site units
(calculated with equation (9) using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index - CEPCI [41] updated to year 2022), a 20 % rate was added for the
ηPower =
Net power output
*100 utilities and offsite investments as a validated procedure in the energy
Hydrogen thermal input conversion processes [38]. In addition, a rate of 25 % from the total
=
Gross power output − Ancillary consumption
*100 (4) installed cost was used for the owner’s cost and contingency together
Hydrogen thermal input with an additional 5 % for the land purchase, permitting and surveying.
All these offsite and process contingency investment specifications are

5
C.-C. Cormos
fully in line with validated economic assessment methodology in CCUS
applications [42].
- Specific capital investment (SCI) is calculated as a ratio of total
capital (CAPEX) cost covering both the equipment purchase and process
installation costs (employing install factors as specified in [25]) and the
SNG/methanol thermal outputs of the investigated concepts:
(Total capital cost)SNG/methanol plant
SCI = (10)
SNG/methanol mass output
- Operational & maintenance (O&M) costs are calculated with their
corresponded fixed and variable components. Fixed O&M cost com­
prises: maintenance, direct labour, administrative, support and over­
head costs. Variable O&M cost comprises: raw-materials directly linked
to plant operation (e.g., hydrogen, catalysts, make-up water etc.).
Table 3 shows the key economic specifications employed for the oper­
ational (OPEX) costs calculation. The input CO2 stream as raw material
used in both SNG and methanol plants was considered with zero cost
since it can be seen as a waste from the process where was captured.
- Levelized cost of SNG/methanol (LCOSNG/LCOMeOH) are calcu­
lated as annualized CAPEX plus OPEX costs for each investigated
concept divided to the SNG/methanol mass outputs as follow:
LCOSNG =
(Annualized capitalcost +Operational& maintenance cost)SNG plant
SNGmass output
(11)
LCOMeOH
(Annualized capital cost + Operational & maintenance cost)MeOH plant
=
Methanol mass output
(12)
The key economic specifications employed in the economic evalua­
tion of the SNG/methanol production concepts from captured CO2 and
renewable (green) H2 are shown in Table 3 together with their literature
reference sources.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production
As mentioned before, the SNG plant was thermally integrated using
pinch methodology for energy optimization. Fig. 4 present the balanced
hot and cold composite curves (Fig. 4.1) and the grand composite curves
(Fig. 4.2) for the SNG production plant from green hydrogen and carbon
dioxide. As can be noticed, >30 MW of thermal heat was recovered from
the process streams (as available heat sources within the plant) as
Fig. 4. Thermal integration analysis for SNG production plant. Fig. 4.1. Balanced composite curves. Fig. 4.2. Grand composite curve.
6
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
generated steam to contribute to increasing the overall energy
efficiency.
The overall mass and energy balances (shown in Table 4) for the SNG
production plant were employed for calculation of most important
techno-economic and environmental performance indicators. The pro­
duced sustainable SNG product has similar thermal characteristics (e.g.,
lower calorific value – LHV, Wobble index etc.) such as the natural gas to
enhance an easy integration with the existing transport and utilisation
infrastructure. For instance, the composition (expressed as vol.%) of
sustainable SNG stream is the following: 94.75 % methane, 4.18 %
hydrogen, 1.05 % carbon dioxide, 0.02 % other components. Table 4
shows the main technical results of the SNG production plant.
As can be observed from Table 4, the SNG process exhibits very high
raw material conversion rates (98–99 % according to equations (6) and
(7)) for both captured carbon dioxide and green hydrogen. Also, in term
of the overall energy conversion, an about 59 % global energy efficiency
was calculated coupled with negligible specific CO2 emissions (unreac­
ted CO2 end up in the product SNG stream). The economic evaluation
was based on the reported assessment methodology by the authors [20].
Table 5 presents the main economic results (e.g., capital and operational
& maintenance costs, levelized cost) for sustainable SNG production
plant.
The SNG production cost (about 16 €/GJ) is significantly higher than
the historical natural gas prices (6–8 €/GJ) but somehow comparable
(even lower) than current European market prices (20–40 €/GJ) [47].
The techno-economic aspects mentioned above show the potential of
this CO2 utilization technology to deliver competitive SNG prices for
high carbon tax conditions. Sensitivity analysis (see Fig. 5) is done to
assess the overall effect of different economic parameters on the SNG
production cost. As can be noticed (and expected for a renewable-based
CO2 utilization technology), the highest influence on SNG production
cost is given by the hydrogen production cost. With a higher penetration
of renewables, the hydrogen price is expected to drop giving an eco­
nomic competitive angle for the SNG production [48].
The influence of several renewable energy sources used for green
hydrogen production as well as the influence of carbon dioxide
Table 5
Key economic performance indicators of SNG plant.
Plant economic parameter Unit Value
Total installed cost M€ 52.28
Total capital (CAPEX) cost M€ 74.08
Specific capital investment €/t SNG 2159.76
Operational & maintenance (O&M) cost €/t 6.35
Levelized cost of SNG (LCOSNG) €/t€/GJ 830.8615.85
C.-C. Cormos
emission tax (between 0 and 100 €/t) on SNG production cost (calcu­
lated with equation (11)) is presented in Fig. 6. One can noticed that,
the CO2 emission tax has an important influence on SNG production
cost. In the future, a high CO2 emission tax is foreseen due to the
development and deployment of low-carbon applications and the
overall implementation of The European Green Deal to achieve EU
climate neutrality [49]. In term of various renewable technologies used
for green hydrogen production (e.g., gasification, fermentation, water
electrolysis etc.), there is no much difference among the considered
options (except the photo-voltaic electrolysis which exhibits signifi­
cantly higher production costs). The steam methane reforming case
was introduced here only for comparison reasons considering that SNG
represent the main product.
4.2. Methanol production
As for the case of SNG plant, the methanol plant was also subject of
thermal integration analysis using pinch methodology. Fig. 7 present the
balanced composite curves (Fig. 7.1) and the grand composite curve
(Fig. 7.2) for the methanol production plant. The thermal integration
analysis shows positive energy balance of the plant such as >10 MW of
thermal energy was recovered as generated steam to improve the overall
energy efficiency.
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis of SNG production cost.
Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis of SNG production cost.
7
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
As for the SNG production plant, also in case of sustainable renewable-
methanol synthesis from captured CO2 and green hydrogen, the overall
process balances derived from simulation work are employed for the
calculation of global key performance indexes. Table 6 presents the main
technical and environmental results of the methanol production plant.
The assessed sustainable methanol production plant as CO2 utiliza­
tion technology using renewable (green) hydrogen has a high conver­
sion rates (>97 %) of both CO2 and H2 reactants as well as a relatively
high global energy efficiency (54 %). The specific CO2 emissions are also
drastically reduced to about 0.04 kg/kg methanol in comparison to the
fossil-based methanol production systems which has specific CO2
emissions of about 0.5–0.7 kg/kg methanol [50]. Following the tech­
nical analysis, the economic assessment was done also for methanol
production. The main economic indicators for methanol production are
displayed in Table 7.
The sustainable methanol production route as the proposed inte­
grated P2X and CO2 utilization concept gives a slightly higher price
(about 755 €/t) than the current fossil-based market prices (which are
situated in 450–900 €/t range) [50–51]. However, considering the ex­
pected increasing trend of CO2 emission tax [52] as well as the stringent
requirement to develop low carbon sustainable solutions, this integrated
renewable-based CO2 utilization technology could give positive eco­
nomic results in the near future.
C.-C. Cormos Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943

Fig. 7. Thermal integration analysis for methanol production plant. Fig. 7.1. Balanced composite curves. Fig. 7.2. Grand composite curve.

Table 6 green hydrogen production would be (as presented also for the SNG
Key technical performance indicators of methanol plant. case), the utilization of thermo-chemical processes (e.g., gasification,
Plant technical parameter Unit Value catalytic reforming, chemical/calcium looping etc.) fuelled by renew­
able energy sources such as biomass, biogas, eventually fitted with CO2
CO2 consumption t/h 17.65
CO2 conversion rate % 97.25 capture feature which will enhance the negative carbon emission
H2 consumption t/h 2.42 [55–57].
H2 conversion rate % 100.00 The two investigated energy carriers produced from green hydrogen
Power consumption for water electrolysis (green H2) kWh/kg 54.00 and captured CO2 have significant different global market sizes. The
Total energy consumption for green H2 production MWe 129.42
(A)
SNG has a bigger market when evaluating the current global market of
Methanol production rate t/h 12.50 the natural gas (about 955 vs. about 31 billion USD in 2021 [58–59]).
Methanol LHV MJ/kg 19.93 Furthermore, the sustainable SNG production from green hydrogen and
Methanol thermal output (B) MWth 69.20 captured CO2 have higher overall energy efficiency as well as a pro­
Plant ancillary consumption MWe − 3.40
duction price closer to the fossil-correspondent (natural gas) than the
Power block output MWe 4.19
Total power production (C) MWe 0.79 case of methanol. These positive techno-economic elements make the
Net global energy efficiency (B þ C/A * 100) % 54.08 SNG production currently more attractive than the methanol case. The
Specific CO2 emissions kg/kg 0.04 methanol case could be also attractive in the future but on the longer
MeOH perspective when renewable energy prices are expected to drop and the
CO2 emission tax is expected to increase.
It worth mention also, that the overall hydrogen supply chain is very
important for a global analysis in respect to techno-economic competi­
Table 7
tiveness. This overall assessment would start from harvesting the
Key economic performance indicators of methanol plant.
renewable electricity by solar and wind applications to hydrogen pro­
Plant economic parameter Unit Value duction via water electrolysis, renewable power and hydrogen inter­
Total installed cost M€ 45.50 mediate storage (to tackle the integration issue between the time-
Total capital (CAPEX) cost M€ 63.88 variable renewable power and base-load chemical synthesis plants)
Specific capital investment €/t methanol 638.82
and finally the chemical conversion to SNG/methanol. In addition, it
Operational & maintenance (O&M) cost €/t 705.52
Levelized cost of methanol (LCOMeOH) €/t 754.97 must be mentioned that to make these systems more competitive,
focussing to the optimization of production methods is critically
important. For instance, in respect green hydrogen production, making
To assess, the effect of CO2 price on sustainable methanol production the water electrolysis more efficient (e.g., reducing electricity con­
cost, Fig. 8 presents the variation of Net Present Value (NPV) with the sumption by better electrodes and membranes), this will significantly
CO2 emission tax. The NPV method was used to calculate the methanol influence the techno-economic indicators of SNG/methanol plants.
production cost following the agreed methodology of zero NPV [53]. It
can be noticed that, based on the current economic assumptions 5. Conclusions
considered in this analysis, the sustainable methanol production tech­
nology from captured CO2 can become economic attractive (NPV zero or The present work investigates the techno-economic and environ­
positive) for the carbon emission taxes higher than about 220 €/t mental connotations of large-scale sustainable SNG and methanol pro­
(currently, the CO2 price is about 100 €/t [46]). However, it must also be duction concepts using captured CO2 and renewable (green) hydrogen.
considered that very likely the fossil fuel prices (e.g., oil, natural gas, These integrated Power-to-X and CO2 utilization systems were evaluated
coal and lignite), which currently are the preferred raw materials for using ChemCAD software being subsequently thermally integrated via
conventional methanol production processes, will have an accelerated pinch analysis for optimization of overall energy utilization. The overall
increasing path [54]. mass & energy balances were further used as base for quantification of
Regarding to the impact of renewable electricity price (employed for the most important techno-economic and environmental performance
green hydrogen production via water electrolysis) to the final methanol indexes (e.g., overall energy efficiency, raw material consumptions,
price, it must be decreased by a factor of about 2 to get an NPV value specific CO2 emissions, CAPEX and OPEX costs, levelized cost of sus­
equal to zero [21]. A promising alternative technological option for the tainable SNG and methanol).

8
C.-C. Cormos
Fig. 8. NPV variation vs. CO2 emission tax for methanol production.
As the key investigation results show, the sustainable SNG and
methanol production systems from renewable (green) hydrogen and
captured CO2 have high energy efficiencies (about 54–59 %) and almost
total CO2 and H2 conversion rates (about 96–99 %). This result is very
relevant for the efficient transformation of green hydrogen and captured
CO2 into sustainable energy carriers. In respect to the economic in­
dicators, the investigated sustainable renewable-based CO2 utilisation
concepts are not yet fully cost competitive to the existing fossil-based
solutions. For instance, the production costs are about 16 €/GJ for
SNG and about 755 €/t for renewable methanol in comparison to an
average price of 10 €/GJ for natural gas and 450–500 €/t for fossil
methanol. But, with the expected reduction of renewable energy prices
due to the ongoing deployment of this sector, predicted increase of fossil
energy prices, as well as the increase of carbon emission taxes, these
integrated Power-to-X (P2X) and CO2 utilization systems can become
economically viable solutions for developing the low-carbon applica­
tions used to deliver the foreseen global climate neutrality. In term of
future work perspectives, the incorporation of new technological (e.g.,
improved catalysis, better electrodes and membranes for water elec­
trolysers) and economic (e.g., price modifications) developments,
consideration of the overall hydrogen supply chain as well as a detailed
evaluation of the environmental impact (via a Life Cycle Analysis) would
be very beneficial for the large-scale deployment of integrated Power-to-
X (P2X) and CO2 utilization systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Calin-Cristian Cormos: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Meth­
odology, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Software, Validation,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – 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.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
9
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of
Education and Research, CCCDI - UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-
ID-PCE-2020-0032 and the NO Grants 2014–2021, under project con­
tract no. 13/2020.
References
[1] Z. Zhang, G. Hu, X. Mu, L. Kong, From low carbon to carbon neutrality: A
bibliometric analysis of the status, evolution and development trend, J. Environ.
Manage. 322 (2022), 116087, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116087.
[2] J. Rissman, C. Bataille, E. Masanet, N. Aden, W.R. Morrow III, N. Zhou, N. Elliott,
R. Dell, N. Heeren, B. Huckestein, J. Cresko, S.A. Miller, J. Roy, P. Fennell,
B. Cremmins, T.K. Blank, D. Hone, E.D. Williams, S. de la Rue, B. du Can, M. Sisson,
J. Williams, D. Katzenberger, G. Burtraw, H. Sethi, D. Ping, H. Danielson, T. Lu,
J. Lorber, J.H. Dinkela, Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry:
Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070, Appl. Energy 266
(2020), 114848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114848.
[3] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, L. Meyer, Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Switzerland,
Geneva, 2005.
[4] European Commission, The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, Brussels,
Belgium, 2019.
[5] European Union, EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), 2022, https://ec.europa.
eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en (accessed 1 December
2022).
[6] A.D.N. Kamkeng, M. Wang, J. Hu, W. Duc, F. Qian, Transformation technologies
for CO2 utilisation: current status, challenges and future prospects, Chem. Eng. J.
409 (2021), 128138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128138.
[7] S. Miehling, S. Fendt, H. Spliethoff, Optimal integration of Power-to-X plants in a
future European energy system and the resulting dynamic requirements, Energy
Convers. Manag. 251 (2022), 115020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.115020.
[8] I. Sorrenti, T.B.H. Rasmussen, S. You, Q. Wu, The role of power-to-X in hybrid
renewable energy systems: A comprehensive review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
165 (2022), 112380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112380.
[9] W.Y. Hong, A techno-economic review on carbon capture, utilisation and storage
systems for achieving a net-zero CO2 emissions future, Carbon – Sci. Technol. 3
(2022), 100044, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2022.100044.
[10] S. Valluri, V. Claremboux, S. Kawatra, Opportunities and challenges in CO2
utilization, J. Environ. Sci. 113 (2022) 322–344, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jes.2021.05.043.
[11] A. Alok, R. Shrestha, S. Ban, S. Devkota, B. Uprety, R. Joshi, Technological
advances in the transformative utilization of CO2 to value-added products,
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10 (2022), 106922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jece.2021.106922.
[12] A.R. Dahiru, A. Vuokila, M. Huuhtanen, Recent development in Power-to-X: Part I -
A review on techno-economic analysis, J. Energy Storage 56 (2022), 105861,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105861.
C.-C. Cormos
[13] D.S. Mallapragada, Y. Dvorkin, M.A. Modestino, D.V. Esposito, W.A. Smith, B.
M. Hodge, M.P. Harold, V.M. Donnelly, A. Nuz, C. Bloomquist, K. Baker, L.
C. Grabow, Y. Yan, N.N. Rajput, R.L. Hartman, E.J. Biddinger, E.S. Aydil, A.
D. Taylor, Decarbonization of the chemical industry through electrification:
Barriers and opportunities, Joule 7 (2023) 23–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joule.2022.12.008.
[14] L.E. Basini, F. Furesi, M. Baumgärtl, N. Mondelli, G. Pauletto, CO2 capture and
utilization (CCU) by integrating water electrolysis, electrified reverse water gas
shift (E-RWGS) and methanol synthesis, J. Clean. Prod. 377 (2022), 134280,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134280.
[15] R.M. Jacob, L.A. Tokheim, Electrified calciner concept for CO2 capture in pyro-
processing of a dry process cement plant, Energy 268 (2023), 126673, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126673.
[16] C. Harpprecht, T. Naegler, B. Steubing, A. Tukker, S. Simon, Decarbonization
scenarios for the iron and steel industry in context of a sectoral carbon budget:
Germany as a case study, J. Clean. Prod. 380 (2022), 134846, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134846.
[17] K. Zhi, Z. Li, B. Wang, J.J. Klemeš, L. Guo, A review of CO2 utilization and
emissions reduction: From the perspective of the chemical engineering, Process
Saf. Environ. Prot. 172 (2023) 681–699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2023.02.046.
[18] T. Chwoła, T. Spietz, L. Więcław-Solny, A. Tatarczuk, A. Krótki, S. Dobras, A. Wilk,
J. Tchórz, M. Stec, J. Zdeb, Pilot plant initial results for the methanation process
using CO2 from amine scrubbing at the Łaziska power plant in Poland, Fuel 263
(2020), 116804, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116804.
[19] S. Sollai, A. Porcu, V. Tola, F. Ferrara, A. Pettinau, Renewable methanol production
from green hydrogen and captured CO2: A techno-economic assessment, J. CO2
Util. 68 (2023), 102345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102345.
[20] S. Szima, C.C. Cormos, CO2 Utilization Technologies: A techno-economic analysis
for synthetic natural gas production, Energies 14 (2021) 1258, https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14051258.
[21] S. Szima, C.C. Cormos, Improving methanol synthesis from carbon-free H2 and
captured CO2: A techno-economic and environmental evaluation, J. CO2 Util. 24
(2018) 555–563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2018.02.007.
[22] M. Bailera, P. Lisbona, L.M. Romeo, S. Espatolero, Power to Gas projects review:
Lab, pilot and demo plants for storing renewable energy and CO2, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 69 (2017) (2017) 292–312, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.11.130.
[23] E.I. Koytsoumpa, S. Karellas, Equilibrium and kinetic aspects for catalytic
methanation focusing on CO2 derived Substitute Natural Gas (SNG), Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 94 (2018) 36–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.06.051.
[24] M. Pérez-Fortes, J.C. Schöneberger, A. Boulamanti, E. Tzimas, Methanol synthesis
using captured CO2 as raw material: Techno-economic and environmental
assessment, Appl. Energy 161 (2016) 718–732, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.07.067.
[25] R. Smith, Chemical Process Design and Integration, second ed., Wiley, Hoboken,
USA, 2016.
[26] J. Matinmikko, S.K. Kinnunen, T. Sinkkonen, T. Kärri, Towards sustainable
feasibility studies for P2X investments, J. Clean. Prod. 365 (2022), 132641,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132641.
[27] C. Toro, E. Sciubba, Sabatier based power-to-gas system: Heat exchange network
design and thermoeconomic analysis, Appl. Energy 229 (2018) 1181–1190,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.036.
[28] S.S. Kumar, H. Lim, An overview of water electrolysis technologies for green
hydrogen production, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 13793–13813, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.127.
[29] A. Khuenpetch, C. Choi, P. Reubroycharoen, K. Norinaga, Development of a kinetic
model for CO2 methanation over a commercial Ni/SiO 2 catalyst in a differential
reactor, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 224–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2022.10.194.
[30] F. Gutiérrez-Martín, L.M. Rodríguez-Antón, Power-to-SNG technologies by
hydrogenation of CO2 and biomass resources: A comparative chemical engineering
process analysis, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 44 (2019) 12544–12553, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.168.
[31] M. Li, Y. Zhuang, L. Zhang, L. Liu, J. Du, S. Shen, Conceptual design and techno-
economic analysis for a coal-to-SNG/methanol polygeneration process in series and
parallel reactors with integration of waste heat recovery, Energy Convers. Manag.
214 (2020), 112890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112890.
[32] Chemstations, ChemCAD - Chemical Process Simulation, 2022, http://www.ch
emstations.net/(accessed 12 December 2022).
[33] S. Bandyopadhyay, Power Pinch Analysis, in: J.J. Klemeš, Handbook of Process
Integration (PI): Minimisation of Energy and Water Use, Waste and Emissions,
second ed., Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 2022.
[34] Y. Khojasteh-Salkuyeh, O. Ashrafi, E. Mostafavi, P. Navarri, CO2 utilization for
methanol production; Part I: Process design and life cycle GHG assessment of
10
Applied Thermal Engineering 231 (2023) 120943
different pathways, J. CO2 Util. 50 (2021), 101608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcou.2021.101608.
[35] G. Lombardelli, M. Mureddu, S. Lai, F. Ferrara, A. Pettinau, L. Atzoric,
A. Conversano, M. Gatti, CO2 hydrogenation to methanol with an innovative Cu/
Zn/Al/Zr catalyst: Experimental tests and process modeling, J. CO2 Util. 65 (2022),
102240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102240.
[36] D.S. Kourkoumpas, E. Papadimou, K. Atsonios, S. Karellas, P. Grammelis,
E. Kakaras, Implementation of the Power to Methanol concept by using CO2 from
lignite power plants: Techno-economic investigation, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41
(2016) 16674–16687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.100.
[37] G. Fambri, C. Diaz-Londono, A. Mazza, M. Badami, T. Sihvonen, R. Weiss, Techno-
economic analysis of Power-to-Gas plants in a gas and electricity distribution
network system with high renewable energy penetration, Appl. Energy 312 (2022),
118743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118743.
[38] International Energy Agency - Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), CO2
capture at gas fired power plants, Report 2012/8, Cheltenham, UK, 2012.
[39] U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Cost
and performance baseline for fossil energy plants. Volume 1a: Bituminous coal (PC)
and natural gas to electricity, Report DOE/NETL-2015/1723, USA, 2015.
[40] R. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, Analysis, Synthesis and Design
of Chemical Processes, third ed., Prentice Hall, 2009.
[41] Chemical Engineering, Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI), 2022, htt
ps://www.chemengonline.com/site/plant-cost-index/(accessed 12 December
2022).
[42] M. Van der Spek, S. Roussanaly, E.S. Rubin, Best practices and recent advances in
CCS cost engineering and economic analysis, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 83 (2019)
91–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.006.
[43] J. Guilera, J. Ramon Morante, T. Andreu, Economic viability of SNG production
from power and CO2, Energy Convers, Manag. 162 (2018) 218–224, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.037.
[44] A. Kiss, J.J. Pragt, H. Vos, G. Bargeman, M. de Groot, Novel efficient process for
methanol synthesis by CO2 hydrogenation, Chem. Eng. J. 284 (2016) 260–269,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.101.
[45] C.C. Cormos, C. Dinca, Techno-economic and environmental implications of
decarbonization process applied for Romanian fossil-based power generation
sector, Energy 220 (2021), 119734, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119734.
[46] EMBER - Coal to clean energy policy, Daily carbon prices, 2022, https://ember-c
limate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/, (accessed 14 December 2022).
[47] European Union, EU Natural Gas Prices, 2022, https://tradingeconomics.com/co
mmodity/eu-natural-gas (accessed 11 December 2022).
[48] I. Dincer, C. Acar, Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for
better sustainability, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 40 (2015) 11094–11111, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.035.
[49] J.F. George, V.P. Müller, J. Winkler, M. Ragwitz, Is blue hydrogen a bridging
technology? - The limits of a CO2 price and the role of state-induced price
components for green hydrogen production in Germany, Energy Policy 167 (2022),
113072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113072.
[50] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Innovation Outlook - Renewable
Methanol, 2021.
[51] INTRATEC, Methanol Prices, 2022, https://www.intratec.us (accessed 12
December 2022).
[52] Y. Lovcha, A. Perez-Laborda, I. Sikora, The determinants of CO2 prices in the EU
emission trading system, Appl. Energy 305 (2022), 117903, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117903.
[53] S. Szima, S.M. Nazir, S. Cloete, S. Amini, S. Fogarasi, A.M. Cormos, C.C. Cormos,
Gas switching reforming for flexible power and hydrogen production to balance
variable renewables, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 110 (2019) 207–219, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.061.
[54] International Energy Agency, Electricity Market Report - July 2022, Paris, France,
2022.
[55] P. Parthasarathy, K. Sheeba Narayanan, Hydrogen production from steam
gasification of biomass: influence of process parameters on hydrogen yield - a
review, Renew. Energy 66 (2014) 570–579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.12.025.
[56] J. Udomsirichakorn, P. Abdul Salam, Review of hydrogen-enriched gas production
from steam gasification of biomass: the prospect of CaO-based chemical looping
gasification, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 565–579, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.013.
[57] C.C. Cormos, Integrated assessment of IGCC power generation technology with
carbon capture and storage (CCS), Energy 42 (2012) 434–445, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.025.
[58] The Business Research Company, Natural gas global market, 2023, https://www.th
ebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/natural-gas-global-market-report
(accessed 24 March 2023).
[59] Markets and Markets, Methanol market, 2023, https://www.marketsandmarkets.
com (accessed 24 March 2023).