please click on names or images for LinkedIn
(site development, process and chemistry research, process development, ASPEN HYSYS implementation, case study optimization and visualization, hazards and operability studies, P&ID drafting, and pressure relief system design)
(project management / lead, communications, market research, equipment sizing & pricing, economic & market analysis, P&ID drafting)
In partnership with HyGear, we are developing a modular, containerized green methanol synthesis unit that utilizes hydrogen and CO₂ from biogas upgrading. The project explores two pathways: (1) using syngas (H₂, CO, and CO₂) produced from steam methane reforming (SMR), and (2) synthesizing methanol directly from biogenic CO₂ and electrolytic hydrogen. Along with optimizing the process to align with HyGear’s SMR unit, the study will also examine the broader potential for captured CO₂, including its use in industries like food and beverage, greenhouse agriculture, or long-term storage through geologic sequestration. With evolving policies such as 45Q tax credits and state-level carbon regulations, the goal is to identify the most viable approach—whether through green methanol production or alternative CO₂ utilization and storage strategies.
Final project report can be accessed here
H₂ and CO₂ feedstocks were derived from HyGear's and their partner company's — HoSt's — established technologies.
The conventional pathway will use 311 scfm H₂ and 200 kg/hr CO₂ feedstocks, produced by HyGear's SMR Grand unit, at 20°C - 50°C and 1-30 bar. In this case we will assume a temperature of 50°C and a pressure of 30 bar, as shown on the website.
The green methanol pathway utilizes hydrogen gas (H₂) produced from HyGear’s electrolyzer unit and carbon dioxide (CO₂) from HoSt’s biogas upgrading unit, at the respective outlet conditions of 90 °C, 1.5 kPa and 20 °C, 2 mbarg. In this case, we assume the CO₂ feedstock is sourced from the compact model of the biogas upgrading unit, corresponding to a CO₂ mass flow rate of 1,200 kg/hr as shown on the website. The H₂ flow rate of 1,636 kmol/hr was determined through an optimization study.
Methanol (MeOH) will be synthesized through the hydrogenation of CO₂ feedstock. The primary reaction pathway is shown below, with the CO₂ → MeOH reaction boxed and competing side reactions listed underneath.
Since CO formation competes with MeOH production, a Cu/ZnO/Al₂O₃ (CuZA) catalyst was selected to enhance MeOH selectivity and CO₂ conversion. While there is ongoing research into more selective catalysts, CuZA was chosen due to its widespread use in commercial methanol synthesis and its well-documented reaction kinetics. The catalyst kinetics are modeled using the Vanden Bussche–Froment model, shown below.
Given the extensive literature supporting commercial MeOH production, there is also significant research and development into effective reactor models. A Lurgi reactor model — with a boiling water reactor (BWR) design — was selected for its efficient heat recovery through steam generation and structural similarity to shell-and-tube heat exchangers, which simplifies cost estimation and design. The BWR model is based on the pilot plant design described in Shi, C.’s master’s thesis. The reactor specifications are shown below.
Optimal reactor operating conditions — including length, temperature, and pressure — as well as electrolytic H₂ feed rate were determined through simulation case studies and selected to minimize CO formation while maximizing MeOH production and CO₂ conversion.
Below are our current results. For a detailed explanation of market research, process development, and economic analysis, please feel free to view our final project report(work in progress).
please scroll left to right to see current work on process development & methanol market research, sources to sourced images can be either accessed by clicking on the "(img src)" link or on the image itself. case study images can be selected as well.
Utility, capital, raw materials, labor, and sales costs were determined to evaluate methanol pricing for each pathway.
Pathway 1 (SMR-based) showed significantly lower production costs, at $114.29 per kg, compared to $309,095 per kg for Pathway 2 (biogas and electrolysis). Total capital and operating costs for Pathway 1 were $675,286 and $240,000, respectively, while Pathway 2 incurred $1,337,442 in capital costs and $300,000 in operating costs, driven largely by intensive utility demands and sophisticated separation systems.
Despite its high cost, Pathway 2 aligns better with sustainability goals by reducing carbon emissions and avoiding byproduct formation, but will require further optimization to be economically viable.
Cost and sizing calculations, as well as, detailed economic analysis of each pathway is discussed in our final project report.
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) forecasts the global green methanol market to grow significantly by 2050, with production projected to reach 500 Mt, including 250 Mt from e-methanol and 135 Mt from bio-methanol. This growth will be driven by demand in transportation, shipping, and chemical production from implementation of sustainable legislature driving the transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuel standards -- such as the EU's REDII, carbon pricing policies, and International Maritime's net-zero emission, GHG strategy.
(img src)
Piping & instrumentation diagram of our green methanol design
TOP: ASPEN HYSYS implementation of green methanol process model
BOTTOM: ASPEN HYSYS tables
Outlined streams:
H₂ (1), CO₂ (2) feed stocks
product
waste
recycle distillation column outlets
reactor effluent
Piping & instrumentation diagram of our conventional methanol design
TOP: ASPEN HYSYS implementation of conventional methanol process model
BOTTOM: ASPEN HYSYS tables
Outlined streams:
H₂ (1), CO₂ (2) feed stocks
product
waste
recycle distillation column outlets
reactor effluent
Chemicals present in conventional and green methanol pathways were assessed using CAMEO Chemicals data and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) information. Significant health, flammability, and stability hazards are listed in the left-hand table, which also indicates key chemical thresholds, while the right-hand figure displays chemical reactivity hazard data from CAMEO Chemicals.
Tables detailing stream-wise chemical hazards for each process -- including threshold met -- are detailed here.
An additional assessment on material compatibility with process chemicals was performed to guide piping and equipment material selection, following ANSI/API guidelines. Assessment results are detailed in our final project report.
(CAMEO Chemicals and SDS data report)
Based on the chemical hazards assessment, a Hazards and Operability (HazOp) assessment was conducted for the reactor system, resulting in the implementation of a pressure relief system for both pathways.
Pressure relief system was implemented to mitigate risks from gas leaks, pipe blockages, flow or pressure fluctuations, and elevated pressure or temperature in the reactor vessel.
Case study ran in ASPEN HYSYS used to guide green methanol H₂ feedstock flow rate.
To minimize CO formation while maximizing methanol (MeOH) production and CO₂ conversion, a hydrogen (H₂) molar flow rate of 1,636 kmol/hr was selected.
(src code + case study csv)
Case studies ran in ASPEN HYSYS used to guide reactor operating conditions.
To abide by modular constraints, while leveraging the reactor-length-to-methanol-formation relation, we decided to use a reactor length of 9 m. To minimize operating pressure while promoting methanol formation, we decided to operate at 200°C and 50 bar.
(src code + case study csv)
