johnson matthey’s low emission methanol
TRANSCRIPT
Johnson Matthey’slow emission methanol
Andrew Fenwick, Methanol Market Manager, Johnson Matthey
Inspiring science, enhancing life
A world that’s cleaner and healthier;today and for future generations
Syngas and methanol technology (and catalysts) are and will play a pivotal role in tackling climate change and transitioning to a net zero carbon future.
2
3
Decarbonization goals are being set … uncertainty on how to achieve them
According to B&V's 2021 Corporate Sustainability Goal Setting and Measurement report more than 80% of companies surveyed with revenues >$250m have set decarbonization goals, yet 25% have set goals at a level where they are unsure how they will meet them
80%of companies set decarbonization
goals
68%without full
knowledge of how to achieve goals
4
JM is involved at all stages of developmentPotential routes to methanol
This diagram is for discussion only and does not constitute an offer of technology.Biomethanol produced from waste/biomass fermentation (green) is not included in diagram.
or electrification
catalytic processes
with CCS
Waste and Biomass
electrolysis
Fossil Fuels
H2, CO, CO2
CH3OH
CH3OHH2, CO, CO2
CH3OH
synthesis
Fossil Fuels
reforming + CCS
reforming/ gasification
+ CO2
CO2 hydrogenation (‘blue H2’ route)
+ CO2
H2
H2 Water
Fuel
ChemicalsHeavy-duty
transport, aviation, heating, industrial applications, etc.
H2emissions control
USES
Clean Energy
steam reforming with CCS
CO2: Non-renewable: captured CO2 from from fossil-fuel based process (refineries, chemicals, steel making, power generation, etc.) Renewable: captured from air (Direct Air Capture) or from combustion/processing of biomass
CO2
CO2
methanolsyngas route
(Bio-methanol)
+ CO2
+ CO2
(e-methanol route)
Traditional
Insert footer here 5
Carbon Capture & Storage• CO2 recovery cost is $32–122 tCO2
(1) for a natural gas plant
• Pre-combustion CO2 on the syngas or
• Post combustion CO2 capture on the reformer, boiler or fired heater fluegasCost is thought to be more expensive than pre-combustion1
Requires suitable geology in which to safely inject / CO2 pipeline infrastructure will need to be built
• Cost of compression and storage depends on distance to storage
• Tax rebates are available in the US
• Could earn extra revenue with EOR
Electrification• Most natural gas plants are ~ steam
balanced.
• Big power users are compressors
• Natural Gas
• Syngas
• Circulator
• ASU compressor
To incorporate as much low carbon electrical power as possible, need to remove steam generation by changing the flowsheet
low emissions methanolNatural gas to methanol flowsheet
Starting Assumptions:• Green H2 is sparingly available, as cost prohibitive except in certain locations• CO2 emissions taxation will become increasingly expensive
Source: 1 - Carbon sequestration—Technology-based solutions cost overview, IHS Markit, May 2021
9
low emissions methanolKey advantages of the JM GHR+ATR process
Highly efficient process and low capital expenditure
Low natural gas usage per unit of methanol – so reduced upstream
emissions
Lowest amount of CO2
produced per unit of methanol
Intensified plot plan to maximise MeOH production per m2
of land
No carbon capture, so ideal for
units that do not have access to CO2
pipelines
All motor drives, so low cooling water
usage
10
JM’s low emissions methanol will reduce well to tank emissions by 55-70%
JM’s GHR/ATR is the lowest CO2 emissions of any commercial natural gas flowsheet, without CCS
Emissions factors utilised (1)
• Nat gas = 2.4 kgCO2e/GJ
• Renewable electricity mix = 82.8 kgCO2e/MWh (23 gCO2e/MJ)
Well to tank – indicative example
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
SMR/ATR ATR GHR/ATR SMR/ATR+CCS ATR+CCS
kgCO
2e/k
g M
eOH
Production NG extraction ElectricityNote 1: JM used the emission factors for natural gas & a renewable electricity mix, as reported in source Methanol as a marine fuel: Environmental benefits, technology readiness, and economic feasibility, International Maritime Organisation (IMO), Report No.: 2015-1197, Rev 2, Date: 20.01.2016, DNV GL Maritime, Environmental advisory
low emissions methanol
11
JM’s GHR+ATR flowsheet has the lowest levelised cost of production
Simplified Levelised cost of production
SMR/ATR ATR GHR/ATR
OPEX $/t 156 156 154
Levelised CAPEX $/t 116 115 117
TOTAL $/t 272 271 271
SMR/ATR+CCS
ATR+CCS
OPEX $/t 162 163
Levelised CAPEX $/t 129 128
TOTAL $/t 291 290
low emissions methanol
12
Lowest CO2 emissions of any commercial natural gas flowsheet, without expensive and complex CCS
As electrical grids will turn greener, JM GHR/ATR flowsheet is the best future proof solution for natural gas based methanol
Delivered through decades of experience
JM GHR+ATR technology – lowest carbon emission methanol flowsheet from natural gas, in the absence of carbon capture
Key takeaways
14
Natural gas based methanol production urgently needs to reduce its CO2 emissions
JM’s GHR/ATR also offers lowest levelized cost of CO2production of all low emission methanol technologies
JM’s GHR/ATR avoids high cost and complexity of CCS
JM offers a suite of low emission methanol technologies, with and without CCS
Aligned to our vision for
a cleaner, healthier
world
JM is well positioned in syngas to deliver and become a key enabler of the energy transition
Thank you for listening& thank you to my colleague Madhan Janardhanan for his help in the preparation of this presentation
Confidential15